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

21 downloads 563 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.

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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).

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

(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.

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

(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

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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.

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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).

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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]

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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!’

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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.

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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-

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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.

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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 ( )!’

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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).

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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.

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

(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

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

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 at- as 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).

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

(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.

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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’

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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,

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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’.

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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.

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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.

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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’]

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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.

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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’

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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-

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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.

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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.

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

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/.

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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 post- vocalic 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.

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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 [+]

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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.

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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.

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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).

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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.

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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)

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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.

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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 DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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.

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

(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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

(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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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!’

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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.

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

(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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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’

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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’

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

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 <

initial obstruent /ö6rr6s/ ‘demolish a dam’ /ö6dd6r/ ‘be ﬁrst’ /ö6xx6r/ ‘lack, miss’

What is at work here is that Chaha does not allow an approximant consonant in absolute initial position. ([w] is allowed in this position but it is not a consonant.) This triggers initial strengthening (in this case occlusivization), which applies to a bilabial approximant consonant, as shown in (2). (2)

Initial Occlusivization (# ö → b)  +  →  −  / #___  voice   +   Labial 

The production of [b] involves a complete closure of the lips. This could be expressed by including [−] in the output. However, since [−] in obstruents is unmarked, [−, voice] in (2) cannot be anything but a stop by default. So, the output should not include [−] either (see §3.8.3. for discussion). 5.2.2 Nasalization Parallel to the occlusivization in (1), /r/ nasalizes in absolute initial position, (3). (3)

Medial liquid vs. initial nasal Imperfective Perfective yG-r6g(G)d n6g6d < /r6gg6d/

‘touch’

INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING

yG-r6f(G)s yG-r6md

n6f6s n6m6d

< <

/r6ﬀ6s/ /r6mm6d/

161

‘wind’ ‘love’

r-nasalization results in a nasal, not in a nasalized liquid (*[r˜]). It implies oral occlusion and more articulatory energy, which leads me to claim that nasalization here is a form of strengthening. Note also that it occurs in other strengthening contexts such as occlusivization. I assume that [−] in approximants is marked and should accordingly be speciﬁed in them. So, the output includes [−, nasal]. (4)

Initial Nasalization (# r → n)  +  →  −  / #___  nasal   +   Coronal 

The diﬀerence between Initial Occlusivization, in (2), and Initial Nasalization, in (4), is that, the former introduces [−, voice] while the latter introduces [−, nasal]. In both, the resulting consonant is a stop, which expresses strengthening. But [−] in obstruents is unmarked, so it is unspeciﬁed in occlusivization.

5.3

Geminate strengthening

5.3.1 Occlusivization A geminate /öö/ surfaces as a simple obstruent [b], Perfective of (5a), or [p], Perfective of (5b). (See Chapter 2 for details of geminate devoicing and its absence.) (5)

Nongeminate approximant vs. geminate obstruent Imperfective Perfective a. yG-d6ös d6b6s < /d6öö6s/ ‘enlarge’ b. yG-d6öGr d6p6r < /d6öö6r/ ‘add’

Degemination as in /d6öö6s/ → [d6b6s] applies to all stem-internal geminates. In addition, /öö/ occlusivizes in all instances. (The verb t’6ö6t’ ‘has held’ is the only exception to this generalization and I have no explanation for it). As was the case in Initial Occlusivization in (2) above, Geminate Occlusivization transforms [+] to [−, voice], as in (6a). In such cases, a /öö/ becomes a simple voiced stop. (Irrelevant nodes and features are omitted for simplicity.)

162

SOUND MUTATIONS

(6)

a.

Geminate Occlusivization and Degemination (öö → b) öö b C C C

Root [+]

Root [–]

Place

Place Laryngeal

Labial

Labial

[voice]

It is shown in Chapter 2 that a doubly linked [voice] is allowed only if the stemﬁnal radical is an obstruent, as in d6b6s, (5a). In d6b6s, the [voice] of b is a nonﬁnal laryngeal speciﬁcation in the morpheme (the root) so it remains intact. Otherwise, all voiced geminate obstruents of Chaha devoice, as in the Perfective d6p6r, (5b). This can be represented as in (6b). b.

Geminate Occlusivization, Devoicing and Degemination (öö → p) öö b C C C

Root [+]

Root [–]

Place

Place Laryngeal

Labial

Labial

=

(6)

[voice]

The unlicensed Laryngeal node in (6b) — it is unlicensed because it is ﬁnal and doubly linked as in d6p6r — delinks. So, the geminate occlusivizes, devoices and degeminates resulting in the voiceless stop [p]. In this account, voiceless in obstruents means delinking of the Laryngeal node, hence the absence of [voice]. See §2.7.1. for the constraint that prohibits a doubly linked ﬁnal Laryngeal node dominating [voice]. 5.3.2 Nasalization In line with occlusivization of a geminate /ö/, a geminate /r/ nasalizes. Moreover, the usual stem-internal degemination takes place, as in /f6rr6m/ → [f6n6m], below.

INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING

(7)

Nongeminate liquid vs. Jussive Perfective y6-frGm f6n6m < y6-t’Grs t’6n6s < y6-gr6z g6n6z < y6-r6k’ an6k’ <

163

geminate nasal /f6rr6m/ /t’6rr6s/ /g6rr6z/ /A6rr6k’/

‘slice (e.g. a piece bread)’ ‘break oﬀ a little piece’ ‘age’ ‘ﬁnish ()’

Nasalization implies oral closure, more energy and longer duration than [r]. All of these characterize strengthening (see Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 95–9 for an overview). This supports my idea that nasalization in Chaha is strengthening. (8)

Geminate Nasalization and Degemination (rr → n) rr n C C C

Root [+]

Root [+] [–cont] [nasal]

Geminate Nasalization and Degemination applies only to morpheme-internal geminates, i.e. to a single /r/ linked to two adjacent C slots (not to C+C). Geminates created by total assimilation across a morpheme boundary do not degeminate, e.g. yG-m6xGr-n-a → yG-m6xGn-n-a ‘he advises her’. We will also see next that neither degemination nor nasalization applies to geminates created across morpheme boundaries. 5.3.3 Lateralization When a stem-ﬁnal /r/ is followed by a suﬃx-initial /r/, as in (9), we obtain the lateral [l], a sound which exists only in this context and in a handful of loans (see §4.9.2. for a discussion and a list of such words). (9)

Examples of geminates across morpheme boundaries a. /yG-s6öGr-r-a/ → [yG-s6öGl-l-a] ‘He breaks  for her.’ /y-azGr-r-a/ → [y-azGl-l-a] ‘He carries (e.g. a baby) on his back for her.’ /yG-c’6r-r-a/ → [yG-c’6l-l-a] ‘He loads (e.g. the mule) for her.’ b. /yG-c’6rr-r-a/ → [yG-c’6l-l-a] ‘He begets for her advantage.’

164

SOUND MUTATIONS

/yG-w6rr-r-a/

→

/y-a-c6rr-r-a/ →

[yG-w6l-l-a] [y-a-c6l-l-a]

‘He nourishes (e.g. the bride) for her.’ ‘He brings  for her.’

The stem-ﬁnal /r/ is a nongeminate in (9a) whereas it is a geminate in (9b). (According to my analysis, this is not because some verbs of Chaha have stemﬁnal gemination but because these verbs are quadriradicals with a silent /I/ as in yG-c’6rrGI → yG-c’6n ‘he begets’, see §4.7.) When followed by an r-initial suﬃx, the geminate /rr/ of the stem simpliﬁes but does not nasalize (or it nasalizes and then the n-r becomes an [ll]). A stem-ﬁnal /r/ (geminate or simple) becomes a liquid if it is followed by a liquid-initial suﬃx, as in (9). But a stem-ﬁnal /r/ nasalizes if it is followed by a nasal-initial suﬃx, e.g. yG-m6xGn-n-a ‘he advises her’, i.e. the liquid or nasal value of the suﬃx is retained in all cases. Note also that a stem-initial /r/ nasalizes when it is preceded by the placeless nasal, e.g. a-N-r6g6d6 → a-n-n6g6d6 ‘he has not touched ’. What can be observed here is that the liquid or nasal value of an aﬃx is retained. The r-initial suﬃx in (9) triggers lateralization of the stem /r/ (whether this is a geminate or simple). So, both the simple and geminate /r/ turn into the lateral [l]. (10)

Lateralization ((r)r + r → ll) (r)r r (C) C + C

(

)

Root [+]

Root [+]

C

ll +

C

Root [+] [–cont] [lateral]

My claim so far was that a doubly linked approximant becomes an obstruent stop as in (6a, b) or a nasal stop as in (8). I assume that this claim holds also for [ll], i.e. [ll] in Chaha is a lateral stop (expressed by [−, lateral]. Assuming that Chaha [l] involves central closure (with a long duration as it always is a geminate), I believe that analyzing it as [−] is correct. In this account, [+] → [−] classiﬁes lateralization with nasalization. See Paradis (1992: 171) for arguments that [ll] in Fula is [−] but Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 214) for an analysis that considers laterals as either approximants or fricatives. See also Chomsky and Halle (1968: 318) and Kenstowicz (1994: 36) on the controversy concerning the [±] nature of [l]. Note that the features [−, lateral] of the output in (10) cannot be obtained by spreading since /r/ (whether it belongs to a stem or a suﬃx) does

INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING

165

not contain these features. So, it follows that [−, lateral] must be introduced by rules. In my analysis, a simpliﬁed geminate, as in (6a, b) and (8), is derived by leftward spreading of the Root node. On the other hand, the surface geminate is formed by fusing the two Root nodes whose C slots are separated by the morpheme boundary. Possibly, the boundary blocks simpliﬁcation. But in both cases, we have strengthening in which [+] becomes a stop, namely an obstruent stop in occlusivization, a nasal stop in nasalization and a lateral stop in lateralization.

5.4

Post-N strengthening

Post-N strengthening aﬀects /U, ö, r/. This set exhausts all nonnuclear approximants of Chaha found in stem-initial position, i.e. where Post-N strengthening can apply. The other member of nonnuclear approximants is /I/ but it is not found stem-initially. That /ö/ but no obstruent is a member of this set supports my claim that /ö/ is an approximant. 5.4.1 Nasalization of a post-N /r/ A post-N /r/ nasalizes (i.e. becomes [n]), as in (11a). But /r/ in (11b, c) does not nasalize regardless of the preceding /m/ showing that nasalization occurs only if the preceding nasal is the placeless /N/. (In fact, the presence of /m/ in a stem blocks an otherwise applicable nasalization, cf. y6-rgGd → y6-]gGd ‘let him touch !’ vs. y6-rm6d (not *y6-mm6d) ‘let him love someone!’, see §4.5.) The /r/ does not nasalize after other consonants either, cf. (11d). (11)

Nasalization of r only after /N/ a. a-N-r6g6d6 (→ ann6g6d6) ‘He has not touched .’ b. a-mr6g6d6-m (→ *amm6g6d6m) ‘He has made someone act crazy.’ c. yG-f6t’Gm-r-a (→ *yG-f6t’Gm-n-a) ‘He closes  for her.’ d. a-t-r6g6d6-m ‘He has made someone touch .’

Nasalization of a Post-N r, as in (11a), creates a nonsimplifying geminate nn. That simpliﬁcation does not occur may be given the same account as lateralization, i.e. the morpheme boundary blocks degemination. Given the presence of a post-m /r/ in (11b, c), nasalization of the stem-initial /r/ in (11a) cannot be seen

166

SOUND MUTATIONS

as the spreading of [nasal] from the preﬁx to /r/. It should rather be seen as the fusion of /N-/ and /r/. (12)

Nasalization of a Post-N r (N+r → nn) r N C + C

Root [+] [–cont]

Root [+]

[nasal]

C

nn + C Root [+]

[–cont] [nasal]

Since the result of fusion (i.e. [−, nasal, +]) is an impossible sound (approximant segments have no blockage by deﬁnition) the [+] also changes. Nasalization of a Post-N r, in (12), parallels lateralization, (10). In both, the sounds are fused and doubly linked and degemination does not apply. 5.4.2 Occlusivization of a post-N /ö/ The phoneme /ö/ occlusivizes also when it is the second member of a nasalobstruent homorganic cluster, as in (13a). In all other contexts, i.e. after vowels and nonnasal consonants, cf. (13b), a noninitial nongeminated /ö/ remains an approximant [ö]. (13)

Post-N [b] vs. postoral [ö] a. a-m-b6dGr ‘I will not be ﬁrst.’ a-tG-mb6r ‘Let her not exist!’ b. a-t-ö6d6r ‘She will not be ﬁrst.’ a-t-r6öGr ‘She will not exist.’

The homorganic cluster is formed by leftward spreading of the Place node of /ö/. I also claim that Occlusivization of a Post-N ö is not triggered by spreading a feature from /N/ to /ö/. In fact, as depicted in (14), no feature spreads from /N/ to /ö/.

167

INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING

(14)

Occlusivization of a Post-N ö (N+ö → mb) N ö m C C C

Root [+] Root [+] → [–cont] [nasal]

b C

Root [+]

[–cont] [nasal]

Root [-] Laryngeal

Place

[voice] Place

Labial

Labial

Occlusivization in (14) is a byproduct of the double linking, which is created by spreading the Place of /ö/ to /N/. The generalization is that a doubly linked bilabial approximant becomes a voiced obstruent. The N obtains Labial from /ö/ whereas /ö/ becomes a voiced stop because its Place is doubly linked. In other words, due to double linking, the [+] of /ö/ becomes [−, voice], which also is [−] by default. In contrast to my proposal, one could claim that [b] obtains [−, voice] from the preceding nasal (one cannot claim the [−] of [b] to originate from the [+] nasal). However, such an analysis cannot oﬀer a uniﬁed account for [b] being a voiced stop even in the absence of a preceding nasal in b6s6r ‘meat’ and z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’. In addition, I have shown in Chapter 1 that sonorants do not trigger voicing assimilation, e.g. yG-t-man6x ‘he gives up’. So voicing in [b] cannot originate from the nasal. Two more arguments, based on the absence of post-m liquid nasalization discussed in §5.4.1 and the absence of post-N obstruent strengthening discussed in §5.4.4, support the claim that no feature spreads from a nasal to a following segment. The examples in (15) show that the nasal preﬁx and the nasalized /r/ of the stem agree in Place with the following consonant. They receive the default place Coronal when they are followed by a vowel. (15) Nasal preﬁxes and nasalized /r/ are placeless Nasal preﬁx (First Person) a-m-b6dGr ‘I will not be ﬁrst.’ a-X-f6t’Gr ‘I will not lie.’ a-n-t’6k’Gr ‘I will not hide .’ a-n-at’Gö ‘I will not wash .’ a-\-ky6s6s ‘I will not accuse.’ a-]-k’6öGr ‘I will not plant .’

tG-mb6r tG-XfGk’ tG-nt’Gk’ n6k’6t’6-cG-m tG-z6\gy tG-]g6s

Nasalized /r/ ‘Let her exist!’ ‘Let her cut oﬀ a hunk!’ ‘Let her snatch  away!’ ‘She has kicked .’ ‘Let her talk!’ ‘Let her reign!’

168

SOUND MUTATIONS

The /N-/ and the nasalized /r/ get their labiality and velarity from a following consonant, as in (14). The spreading of Place is a structure-building operation since the Place of the nasals is not contrastive as they all derive from /N-/ or /r/. (The /N-/ in (15) marks ﬁrst person while a- marks negation, see Petros 1996a: 139–41.) 5.4.3 Occlusivization of a post-N /U/ The underlying initial radical of the stems in (16) is the bilabial /ö/ followed by the labiodorsal /U/. The phoneme /U/ docks on /ö/, as it normally does, creating a complex consonant /öw/. In addition, /öw/ occlusivizes because it is initial in the Aﬃrmative and post-N in the Prohibitive and Negative.1 This is parallel to the behavior of a plain /ö/. (16)

Aﬃrmative bw6n6s

Prohibitive Gm-bw6n6s

Negative a-m-bw6n6s

‘has felt loneliness’

The initial radical of the stems in (17) is /U/, as shown by the Aﬃrmative. When /N/ is preﬁxed to U-initial stems, /N/ becomes [m] and /U/ becomes [bw], as in the Prohibitive and Negative. It is diﬃcult to say whether [m] in [mbw] is round or not. (17)

Aﬃrmative war was wat’ wGy6 w6k’a w6k’6r w6k’6s w6ka w6nd w6r w6w6 w6s6d

Prohibitive Gm-bwar Gm-bwas Gm-bwat’ Gm-bwGy6 Gm-bw6k’a Gm-bw6k’6r Gm-bw6k’6s Gm-bw6ka Gm-bw6nd Gm-bw6r Gm-bw6w6 Gm-bw6s6d

Negative a-m-bwar a-m-bwas a-m-bwat’ a-m-bwGy6 a-m-bw6k’a a-m-bw6k’6r a-m-bw6k’6s a-m-bw6ka a-m-bw6nd a-m-bw6r a-m-bw6w6 a-m-bw6s6d

‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has

spent the day’ lent an object’ swallowed’ gone down’ cut slightly’ agitated’ blamed’ pierced’ descended’ gone’ done an evil act’ taken’

1. In the Prohibitive, an epenthetic G is inserted before /N/ even when /N/ is followed by a vowel as in Gn-ag6d6 ‘let him not tie!’. It is suggested in §9.4.3 that the insertion of G may be accounted for by assuming that /N-/ here is a simpliﬁed geminate. As I argued in Petros (1996a: 141), /N-/ is a Past tense marker and the negative preﬁxes are Ø- and a- in the Prohibitive and Negative respectively.

169

INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING

w6t’a w6t’6k’ w6t’6r w6t6r w6za

Gm-bw6t’a Gm-bw6t’6k’ Gm-bw6t’6r Gm-bw6t6r Gm-bw6za

a-m-bw6t’a a-m-bw6t’6k’ a-m-bw6t’6r a-m-bw6t6r a-m-bw6za

‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has

ascended’ fallen’ invented’ drawn tight’ shined’

The [b] in (17) does not belong to the stem in  as shown by its absence in the Aﬃrmative. Similarly, [b] is absent when the stems take a nonnasal preﬁx, e.g. a-t-war ‘do not spend the day!’ and y6-war ‘let him spend the day!’ In addition, [w] in the Aﬃrmative is not derived by deleting /ö/ from /öw/ since an underlying initial /öU/ in Chaha surfaces as [bw] (not [w]), as shown in (16) above. Such a [b] is present also when /U/ is immediately preceded by the ﬁrst person preﬁx /N-/ as in tG-N-U6t’a → tGmbw6t’a ‘while I go out’ and tG-N-U6t’a-n6 → tGmbw6t’an6 ‘while we go out’. We already know that /N/ is placeless from forms such as Gm-b6na ‘let him not eat!’, Gn-t6n6 ‘let him not swear!’, G]-k6na ‘let him not ascend!’ and Gn-a-x6na ‘let him not shout!’ These examples also show that [b] in the Prohibitive and Negative is not part of the preﬁx. In the preceding section, I have claimed on independent grounds that when the Place node of /ö/ is doubly linked, /ö/ becomes a voiced stop. I now claim that this same phenomenon is responsible for the occlusivization of /U/ in (17). In all cases, [bw] results from occlusivization of a post-N U (i.e. /U/ → [bw]), represented in (18) below. The spreading of Place from /U/ to /N/ creates an approximant with a doubly linked Place node, which in Chaha is not licit. As was the case with the Occlusivization of a Post-N ö, (14), when the Place node of the labiodorsal approximant /U/ is doubly linked, [+] becomes [−, voice]. In this account, similar to Occlusivization of a Post-N ö, Occlusivization of a Post-N U is achieved by spreading the Place node of the approximant to a preceding /N/: (18)

Occlusivization of a Post-N U (N+U → mbw) N U m C C C

Root [+] Root [+] [–cont] [nasal]

bw C

Root [+]

Root [–]

[–cont] [nasal]

Laryngeal [voice] Place

Place Labial

Dorsal

Labial

Dorsal

170

SOUND MUTATIONS

Here, too, no feature spreads from /N/ to /U/ but the Place of /U/ spreads to /N/, and that changes /N/ to [m]. Furthermore, as was the case for /ö/, when the Place node of a Labial approximant is doubly linked it becomes an obstruent stop. An obstruent stop that includes the place speciﬁcations of /U/ is the labiodorsal stop [bw]. Accordingly, Occlusivization of a Post-N U gives evidence that [−, voice] in [b], as well as in [bw], are introduced. My conclusions are twofold. First, the approximant consonants (i.e. /ö, r/) are strengthened when they are initial or when their Root node is doubly linked. Second, all post-N approximants (i.e. /ö, U, I, r/) are strengthened. The generalizations hold with all available data. But we cannot verify if a /NI/ sequence would yield the predicted [^j] ( [^3ë]) because no stem begins with /I/ and no stem ends with (or contains) /N/. 5.4.4 Post-N continuant obstruents When /N/ is followed by a continuant obstruent (/f, s, z, x/) either the /N/ forms a homorganic cluster with the obstruent or it vocalizes (i.e. it nasalizes the preceding vowel), as in (19a). But /N/ does not trigger strengthening of the following obstruent. The stem-initial consonants in (19b) are stops independent of /N/. (19)

Aﬃrmative

a.

x6na s6na z6na f6ta k’6na k6na g6pa t’6na t6n6 d6na n6pa b6na m6na

b.

Prohibitive G]-x6na/ ˜-ı-x6na Gn-s6na/ ˜-ı-s6na Gn-z6na/ -˜ı-z6na GX-f6ta/ ˜-ı-f6ta G]-k’6na G]-k6na G]-g6pa Gn-t’6na Gn-t6n6 Gn-d6na Gn-n6pa Gm-b6na Gm-m6na

Negative a-]-x6na/ã-x6na a-n-s6na/ã-s6na a-n-z6na/ã-z6na a-X-f6ta/ã-f6ta a-]-k’6na a-]-k6na a-]-g6pa a-n-t’6na a-n-t6n6 a-n-d6na a-n-n6pa a-m-b6na a-m-m6na

‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has

forbidden, put’ reached’ sowed’ untied’ been willful’ ascended’ entered’ called, hated’ sworn’ conceived’ split’ eaten’ ﬁlled’

The nasal-obstruent homorganic cluster receives similar treatment with the preceding cases in that it derives by spreading the Place of the stem-initial consonant to /N/. The only diﬀerence here is that the post-N obstruents are not strengthened. The fact that they do not become stops shows that [−] does not spread from /N/ to a following obstruent. This in turn supports my claim that post-N strengthening is not triggered by spreading [−, voice/nasal] from /N/ to a following approximant.

INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING

5.5

171

Approximant strengthening vs. obstruent strengthening

Occlusivization, nasalization and lateralization can be viewed as instances of approximant strengthening, in which deletion of a feature found below the Root node (such as [+] or [voice]) is not an issue because the targets (i.e. approximants) are unspeciﬁed for continuancy and voicing. Note that these three processes do not involve delinking place features. If we assume (in line with Schein and Steriade 1986, McCarthy 1988 and Clements and Hume 1995) that major class features are directly assigned to the Root node the change from [+] to [−] (i.e. /ö/ → [b]) is a process that aﬀects the Root node itself and does not involve delinking of a feature dominated by the Root. On the other hand, /x/ is [+] and its strengthened allophone [k] is derived by delinking [+]. Note that /x/ becoming [k] is another case of strengthening. Similarly, voiced obstruents are [voice] and their voiceless allophones are derived by delinking [voice]. Note also that devoicing can be seen as another case of strengthening. See, for example, Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 95–6) for an overview of research equating voicelessness with tense (or fortis). Let us call these changes (i.e. strengthening /x/ to [k] and devoicing /g/ to [k]) obstruent strengthening. In my analysis, the obstruent strengthening cases are attained by feature-delinking operations since they involve delinking of either [+] or [voice]. Let us now discuss the diﬀerences between approximant strengthening and obstruent strengthening. Both occlusivization and nasalization (approximant strengthening) apply in word-initial position (cf. b6s6r, n6k6s) whereas no strengthening of /x/ (i.e. obstruent strengthening) applies in that context (cf. x6t6ö). Obstruent strengthening depends on the nature of a following radical. For instance, as we have seen in Chapter 3, /x/ strengthens before a continuant obstruent, e.g. yG-r6k(G)s ‘he bites’, whereas it does not before a sonorant yG-s6xGr ‘he gets drunk’. The same generalization holds for geminate devoicing, cf. z6g6d ‘has remembered’ vs. z6k6r ‘has jumped’. The underlying /g/ in z6g6d does not devoice because it is followed by a laryngeal speciﬁcation whereas /g/ in z6k6r devoices because it is followed by [0voice]. Nevertheless, approximant strengthening (occlusivization of /öö/ (i.e. [+] → [−]) and nasalization of /rr/) does not take the nature of the following radical into account. These generalizations show that the applications of approximant strengthening do not take the nature of a following radical into account while those of obstruent strengthening do. In other words, approximant strengthening observes restrictions that are only related to the skeletal tier (such as double linking) whereas obstruent strengthening observes

172

SOUND MUTATIONS

restrictions related to both the skeletal tier to which the segment is linked and segmental features of the surrounding radicals. A doubly linked /ö/ is strengthened to [b, p] by Geminate Occlusivization. Similarly, a doubly linked /r/ is strengthened to [n] by Geminate Nasalization. Let us now see if a consonant in the so-called long-distance geminates (CiVCi) is doubly linked with respect to geminate occlusivization and nasalization. First, let us assume that a consonant in a CiVCi conﬁguration is doubly linked, as in (20). Despite the double-linking, /ö/ in (20a) and /r/ in (20b) are not strengthened. This shows that Ci in CiVCi is not considered a doubly linked segment with respect to approximant strengthening. (20)

a. C V C

b. C V C

c. C V C

d. C V C

ö [+] yG-k’6öGö ‘He shaves.’

r [+] yG-ö6r Gr ‘He flies.’

d x [voice] [+] yG-g6dGd yG-s6kGk ‘He digs a hole.’ ‘He drives a peg.’

Concerning Geminate Devoicing I have shown that a doubly linked [voice] is unlicensed when it is the ﬁnal voicing speciﬁcation in the root. Nevertheless, the doubly linked [voice] in (20c) does not delink regardless of it being ﬁnal. So the representation in (20c) is problematic for geminate devoicing. On the other hand, concerning /x/ strengthening I have shown that [+] delinks from a doubly linked /x/. So the representation in (20d) is supported by geminate strengthening. Nevertheless, we have seen that [+] delinks also when it is followed by a [+] radical. But /x/ in (20d) is not followed by a [+] radical and yet its [+] delinks. So the representation in (20d) is problematic for strengthening of a precontinuant /x/. In this account, the doubly linked representations (20a–c) are problematic for nasalization, occlusivization and devoicing. On the other hand, (20d) is supported by strengthening of a geminate /x/ but it is problematic for strengthening of a precontinuant /x/. Now consider (21) in which the doubly linked representations of (20) are conﬂated: (21)

a.

C V C b. C V C | | | | ö ö r r [+] [+] [+] [+] yG-k’6öGö yG-ö6rGr ‘He shaves.’ ‘He ﬂies.’

INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING

c.

C V C | | d d [voice] [voice] yG-g6dGd ‘He digs a hole.’

d.

173

C V C | | x x [+] [+] yG-s6kGk ‘He drives a peg.’

Here, no [+] is doubly linked so occlusivization in (21a) and nasalization in (21b) cannot apply. In addition, no [voice] is doubly linked so devoicing cannot apply. Furthermore, the ﬁrst /x/ in (21d) must become fortis because a Precontinuant [x] is not allowed. So does the second one because of the need to respect its identity with the ﬁrst one. So, (21d) is compatible with obstruent strengthening. In this account, we can state that Geminate Occlusivization, Geminate Nasalization, Geminate Devoicing and No Precontinuant [x] favor the representations in (21). There are at least two ways of deriving (21). The ﬁrst is Tier Conﬂation, cf. e.g. McCarthy (1986a, b), and the second is considering Ci in CiVCi a copy, cf. e.g. Angoujard (1988), Gafos (1996) and Rose (1997). The real diﬀerences between these two views have yet to be explored.

5.6

Conclusion

In this chapter I expressed the interaction of the main processes discussed in Chapter 2 (i.e. devoicing), III (i.e. strengthening of /x/) and IV (i.e. nasalization). In addition, I have presented the occlusivization of /U/ and shown its similarity with the occlusivization of /ö/. I also discussed the assimilation of /N/ with a following consonant or vocoid and the role of assimilation on approximant strengthening. I brieﬂy discussed the diﬀerences between obstruent strengthening and approximant strengthening. Even though both types of strengthening can be conditioned by double linking of the Place node, the process of strengthening itself does not aﬀect place features. In the following section I will present cluster simpliﬁcation in totally reduplicated verbs where place features are also aﬀected. I will argue that the markedness of the place of the consonant in question determines whether it should be simpliﬁed or not. I will also show that compensatory gemination resulting from simpliﬁcation supports my analysis of geminate devoicing/ nasalization and degemination.

C 6 On the Articulators of Consonants

6.1

Introduction

In this chapter I discuss the markedness of the three articulators (Coronal, Labial, Dorsal) and their hierarchical organization. In §6.2 I propose a hierarchical structure for the articulators and show some advantages of the proposal. In §6.3 I present facts from cluster restriction, which suggest that Coronal is the least and Labial the most marked articulator. In §6.4 I show that cluster restriction does not necessarily apply when the second member is [r].

6.2

Hierarchical organization of the articulators

While Rice (1994: 192ﬀ.) argues for the hierarchically structured representation of articulators given in (1a), Browman and Goldstein (1989: 223), Keyser and Stevens (1994: 212) and Clements and Hume (1995: 290) suggest a representation similar to the one in (1b) based on other factors. There is also a third alternative in which the three articulators are directly dominated by Place, but see Rice (1992: 196ﬀ.) for arguments against it. (1)

a.

Place Peripheral

b. (Coronal)

place [labial]

lingual

Dorsal (Labial) [coronal] [dorsal] In (1a) Dorsal and Labial form the subconstituent Peripheral whereas in (1b) Coronal and Dorsal form the subconstituent Lingual. I believe that both may be correct hierarchical structures of Place and that the option given in (2), where Dorsal is dominated by both Lingual and Peripheral, can reconcile them. (Structures in which a single feature may be dominated by two nodes have also been proposed in Piggott 1992 for [nasal] and McCarthy 1994 for [pharyngeal].)

176

SOUND MUTATIONS

Place

(2)

Peripheral Labial

(Lingual)

Dorsal

(Coronal)

Labialization in Chaha targets peripherals whereas I-triggered palatalization targets linguals. The structure in (2) gives a natural explanation for this asymmetry. The Peripheral node is the target for labialization while the Lingual node is the target for I-triggered palatalization. This justiﬁes the constituent Lingual as well as Peripheral, and the idea that Dorsal should be dominated by both. The parentheses in (1a) and (2) indicate the unmarked nodes at each level. In (1a), Coronal is unmarked under Place while Labial is unmarked under Peripheral. According to this structure, Coronal is the least and Dorsal the most marked articulator. On the other hand, in (2), Coronal is the unmarked articulator under Lingual and Lingual is the unmarked organizing node under Place. This singles out Coronal as the least marked and Labial as the most marked of the three articulators. Accordingly, Coronal is the least marked in both (1a) and (2) whereas the most marked is Dorsal in (1a) and Labial in (2). An argument in favor of the claim that Labial is more marked than Dorsal is given in the following section where a class of verbs allowing a dorsal-labial cluster disallows a labial-dorsal cluster. (See also Alderete et al 1997 for a view that Labial is more marked than Dorsal.)

6.3

Cluster simplification in totally reduplicated verbs

Some totally reduplicated biradical verbs delete their antepenultimate consonant in the Imperative, e.g. /z6mzGm/ → [z6sGm] ‘be wet!’ while others do not, e.g. z6rzGr (not *z6sGr) ‘cut meat into strips!’1 In addition, the penult devoices when the antepenult deletes, as in z6sGm, whereas it does not when the antepenult is maintained, as in z6rzGr. In this section, I will identify the determining factor for the deletion of the antepenult and discuss what it tells us about markedness in place features.

1. Deletion also occurs in the Jussive, which shares a stem-internal C16C2C1GC2 pattern with the Imperative but diﬀers in having person preﬁxes. It should be known that there is nothing special about these forms except their common C16C2C1GC2 pattern.

ON THE ARTICULATORS OF CONSONANTS

177

6.3.1 Labial-coda deletion in a cluster The data in (3) show that a labial deletes in a labial-obstruent cluster, as in /t’6ft’Gf/ → [t’6t’(G)f] ‘dump!’ The labial coda deletes regardless of whether the following onset is a coronal, (3a), or a dorsal, (3b).2 (3)

Labial-coda deletion in verbs with a C16C2C1GC2 pattern a. When the following onset is a coronal /t’6ft’Gf/ → [t’6t’(G)f] ‘Dump!’ /z6fzGf/ → [z6z(G)f] ‘Put to soak!’ /c’6fc’Gf/ → [c’6c’(G)f] ‘Destroy a great number!’ /d6fdGf/ → [d6d(G)f] ‘Mix ﬂour with water!’ /t6ftGf/ → [t6t(G)f] ‘Dip bread into pepper!’ /d6ödGö/ → [d6tGö] ‘Patch!’ /s6ösGö/ → [s6sGö] ‘Collect!’ /t’6öt’Gö/ → [t’6t’Gö] ‘Empty!’ /t6ötGö/ → [t6tGö] ‘Tie up!’ /t’6mt’Gm/ → [t’6t’Gm] ‘Roll !’ /d6mdGm/ → [d6tGm] ‘Conclude!’ /z6mzGm/ → [z6sGm] ‘Be wet!’ b. When the following onset is a dorsal /a-N-k’6fk’Gf/ → [a-]-k’6k’(G)f] ‘Sift!’ → [ky6ky(G)f] ‘Drizzle!’ /ky6fkyGf/ /a-N-k’6ök’Gö/ → [a-]-k’6k’Gö] ‘Prune!’ /N-g6ögGö/ → [G]-g6gGö] ‘Rumble!’ /a-k’w6mk’wGm/ → [a-k’w6k’wGm] ‘Toast!’ /g6mgGm/ → [g6kGm] ‘Chip the rims!’ /k6mkGm/ → [k6kGm] ‘Trim!’

As can be seen from (3), the labial antepenultimate radicals /f, ö, m/ delete when they are the ﬁrst member of a cluster. Note that the stem-ﬁnal /f, ö, m/ in (3) do not delete, showing that a labial coda deletes only when it is the ﬁrst member of

2. The rounded labials [f w, öw, mw] are not found as ﬁnal radicals in totally reduplicated verbs. This remains an unexplained gap in an analysis where [f w], [öw] or [mw] is analyzed as a single phoneme. However, their absence can easily be accounted for in an analysis where each of them is biphonemic by assuming that words such as /a-k’w6mk’wGm/ → [a-k’w6k’wGm], from (3b), are formed from –k’Um and that /U/ labializes the nearest preceding labial or velar. Thus, rounded consonants can only be expected to appear at the beginning of a totally reduplicated word. The generalizations also hold for palatalized consonants. (I write the underlying complex consonants as a single radical for simplicity.)

178

SOUND MUTATIONS

a cluster. Moreover, deletion does not occur when /f, ö, m/ (or any other radical) is an onset, as in the Perfective of these verbs, e.g. [t’Gf6t’6f] (not *[t’Gt’6f], *[t’6t’6f]) ‘has dumped’ and [gGm6k6m] (not *[gGk6m], *[g6k6m]) ‘has chipped the rim’. Labial-obstruent cluster simpliﬁcation applies in (3) not because such clusters are banned everywhere in Chaha. For example, labials do not delete in verbs such as y6-ft’6r ‘let it be ready!’ and y6-mg6r ‘let it suppurate!’ Deletion takes place in (3) possibly because the content of the deleted segment can be recovered from the remainder of the paradigm. The deleted antepenult is compensated by devoicing as in /z6mzGm/ → /z6zzGm/ → [z6sGm] ‘be wet!’ but devoicing does not occur if the ﬁnal radical is an obstruent /z6fzGf/ → /z6zzGf/ → [z6zGf] (not *[z6sGf])‘put  to soak!’ (see §2.3.3). This supports my claim in §2.7.1 that geminates devoice only if they are the ﬁnal laryngeal speciﬁcation in the Root. 6.3.2 No coronal-coda deletion in a cluster A coronal-coda is maintained in the Imperative, as in g6zgGz ‘be cold!’, and f6t’fGt’ ‘throw  to the ground!’ regardless of the point of articulation of the following onset. The coronal antepenultimate radicals of (4a) are followed by a dorsal and those of (4b) by a labial. In both cases, the coronal antepenults do not delete. (See Yip 1991 and the references therein about the special status of coronals concerning cluster simpliﬁcation and the coda condition.) (4)

No coronal-coda deletion in verbs with a C16C2C1GC2 pattern3 a. When the following onset is a dorsal g6zgGz ‘Be cold!’ g6sgGs ‘Go fast!’ gw6zgwGz ‘Spread!’ a-]-gw6dgwGd ‘Dig!’ a-]-kw6tkwGt ‘Weed!’ k6tkGt ‘Crush up !’ k’6t’k’Gt’ ‘Hammer, pound!’ k6skGs ‘Smash !’ a-]-k’6sk’Gs ‘Germinate!’

3. I have claimed in §1.3.1 that [b] is a strengthened /ö/ and that there is no underlying /b/. However, the medial [b] in words such as b6t’bGt’ ‘stir violently!’, from below, is not in a strengthening context as it is not initial, post-N or geminate. Therefore, a stop is unexpected. I assume that the medial /ö/ becomes a stop to maintain its identity with the initial stop.

ON THE ARTICULATORS OF CONSONANTS

b.

179

k’6sk’Gs ‘Wake someone up, arouse!’ gw6sgwGs ‘Move  to and fro in ﬁre!’ a-k’w6zk’wGz ‘Remain underdeveloped!’ When the following onset is a labial f6t’fGt’ ‘Throw  to the ground!’ b6t’bGt’ ‘Stir violently!’ b6sbGs ‘Be putrid, rotten!’ f6sfGs ‘Disintegrate !’ f6tfGt ‘Crumble !’ m6t’mGt’ ‘Be rotten!’ m6zmGz ‘Worry constantly!’

Coronal antepenults do not delete in onset position, as in the Perfectives gGz6g6z ‘has been cold’ and fGt’6f6t’ ‘has thrown  to the ground’. Labials do not delete either in that context, e.g. y-a-t’mat’Gm ‘let him wind around!’ But the fact that coronal antepenults do not delete before a consonant makes them diﬀerent from labials. This shows that a coronal is licit as the ﬁrst member of a cluster such as zg and t’f in totally reduplicated verbs. Naturally, it follows from my analysis that the absence of deletion in (4) entails the absence of compensatory devoicing. 6.3.3 Dorsal-coda deletion in a cluster and its absence Now consider the behavior of dorsal antepenultimate radicals in the Imperative of totally reduplicated verbs. As can be seen below, a dorsal coda deletes when the following onset is a coronal, (5a), whereas it persists when the following onset is a labial, (5b). (5)

The role of a following onset on dorsal-coda deletion a. Dorsal-coda deletion when the following onset is a coronal /a-z6gzGg/ → [a-z6z(G)g] ‘Throw  in a spiral motion!’ /d6gdGg/ → [d6d(G)g] ‘Fill completely!’ /s6gsGg/ → [s6s(G)g] ‘Stuﬀ in, insert to ﬁll an opening!’ /s6xsGx/ → [s6s(G)x] ‘Grind slightly with the pestle (to shell)!’ /a-N-s6xsGx/ → [a-n-s6s(G)x] ‘Pant!’ /a-N-t6ktGk/ → [a-n-t6t(G)k] ‘Boil, make bubbles by boiling!’ /t’6k’t’Gk’/ → [t’6t’(G)k’] ‘Squeeze in a container!’ /c’6k’c’Gk’/ → [c’6c’(G)k’] ‘Nag!’ /s6k’sGk’/ → [s6s(G)k’] ‘Squeeze in a pot!’ /z6k’zGk’/ → [z6z(G)k’] ‘Turn upside-down, lower!’

180

SOUND MUTATIONS

b.

No dorsal-coda deletion when the following onset is a labial f6gfGg *[f6f(G)g] ‘Rub, scrub with soap!’ f6k’fGk’ *[f6f(G)k’] ‘Scrub, scour!’ b6k’bGk’ *[b6b(G)k’] ‘Become too ripe!’ m6xmGx *[m6m(G)x] ‘Bash repeatedly!’ m6k’mGk’ *[m6m(G)k’] ‘Eat  juicy!’

As can be observed, dorsal radicals delete if they form a dorsal-coronal cluster, (5a), whereas they remain if they form a dorsal-labial cluster, (5b). In spite of the antepenult deletion in (5a), the ﬁnal obstruent radical precludes compensatory devoicing. Deletion in (5a) and its absence in (5b) show that, unlike labial codas (which always delete as shown in (3)) and coronal codas (which never delete as shown in (4)), dorsal codas delete depending on the Place of the following onset. However, as was the case with labials and coronals, dorsal antepenultimate radicals do not delete if they are onsets, as in the Perfectives a-zg6z6g ‘has thrown  in a spiral motion’ and fGg6f6g ‘has rubbed’. 6.3.4 Summary The generalizations attained in (3) to (5) indicate that clusters in the totally reduplicated verbs of Chaha are subject to the following restrictions. Table 6.1. Clusters restrictions in totally reduplicated verbs

a. b.

from (3)

from (4)

from (5)

*labial-coronal *labial-dorsal

coronal-dorsal coronal-labial

*dorsal-coronal dorsal-labial

The simpliﬁcations in the totally reduplicated verbs show that: (a) labial-obstruent clusters (e.g. *[ft’], *[mg]) are illicit, as the labial codas delete in (3a, b), (b) coronals are licit as the ﬁrst member of any cluster, as the coronal codas do not delete in (4a, b), and (c) a dorsal-coronal obstruent cluster (e.g. *[gz]) is illicit, as the dorsal codas delete in (5a), whereas a dorsal-labial cluster (e.g. [gf]) is licit, as the dorsal codas do not delete in (5b). Assuming that the coda of a reduplicated verb is licit only when it is less marked than the following onset, the data support my claim, stated in §6.2, that Coronal is the least and Labial the most marked articulator. (See Yip 1991 and the references therein on Coda Condition — especially the placelessness of coronals.)

ON THE ARTICULATORS OF CONSONANTS

6.4

181

Totally reduplicated verbs containing the liquid /r/

Some totally reduplicated verbs containing an antepenultimate stop (nasal or obstruent) and a liquid penult are given below. It can be seen that no antepenult deletes when the penult is [r]. (6)

No deletion in a stop-liquid cluster a. A labial antepenult y-a-r6mrGm ‘Let him make  (e.g. wGsa-bread) soft!’ b. A coronal antepenult y6-r6t’rGt’ ‘Let him shake  violently!’ c. A dorsal antepenult y6-r6grGg ‘Let him covet!’ y-a-r6k’rGk’ ‘Let him plant (a sword) in the ground!’

The place of /r/ (whether it is coronal or placeless) is less marked than labial and dorsal. It then follows from our discussion so far that the clusters in (6a, c) should not be allowed as their second member is less marked than the ﬁrst one. This prediction is conﬁrmed by the following metathesis applying to the forms of (6), though the metathesis is optional.4 (7)

Optional metathesis to avoid a stop-liquid cluster a. y-a-r6mrGm ‘Let him make  ﬂexible!’ b. /y6-r6t’rGt’/ → [y6-rt’6rt’] ‘Let him oscillate!’ c. /y6-r6grGg/ → [y6-rg6rg] ‘Let him covet!’ /y-a-r6k’rGk’/ → [y-a-rk’6rk’] ‘Let him dig a hole!’

In (7b, c) the [6] of the stem and the antepenultimate consonant undergo metathesis, which breaks the stop-liquid cluster. The onset [r]’s of [y6-r6t’rGt’] become codas in [y6-rt’6rt’]. The [G], which in [y6-r6t’rGt’] is needed to separate the last three consonants, is not needed in [y6-rt’6rt’]. In one verb, even radicals can metathesize, as [y-a-frafGr] and [y-a-rfarf] ‘let him make dirty!’, resulting in free variation. Both types of metathesis show that there is a tendency to avoid a stop-

4. It is also possible to assume that the stop-liquid clusters do not simplify because their ﬁrst member is not a coda. In fast speech, an epenthetic vowel does not break up a word-initial CC if the second term is a sonorant, e.g. [gr6t6m] ‘has cut in two’ and [t’öan6r] ‘has folded’. In addition, Prunet (1996b: 184ﬀ.) gives arguments showing that even in cases where the CC is separated by [G], e.g. [gGr6t6m] ‘has cut in two’ and [t’Göan6r] ‘has folded’, that [G] functions as if it has no V slot. In other words, the ﬁrst two consonants in [gGr6t6m] are phonologically adjacent. This suggests that, at least at some level of representation, C1C2 (where C2 is a sonorant) is a branching onset, but I will not deal with this controversial issue anymore in this book.

182

SOUND MUTATIONS

liquid cluster and, instead, form a liquid-stop cluster. This conﬁrms the proposal that the ﬁrst member of a cluster should be less marked than the second member. The following C1C2C1C2 verbs contain a liquid-antepenult [r] followed by a nonliquid penult. The list shows that both members of the cluster are preserved. (8)

No liquid-coda deletion in verbs with a C16C2C1GC2 pattern a. When the following onset is a coronal t’6rt’Gr ‘Be eaten by worms!’ a-n-t’6rt’Gr ‘Hang ()!’ t6rtGr ‘Tear !’ d6ndGr ‘Be stout!’ d6rdGr ‘Stamp!’ s6rsGr ‘Scrape to level!’ z6rzGr ‘Cut meat into strips, change money!’ a-^-c’6rc’Gr ‘Pour little by little!’ c6rcGr ‘Retail!’ w6rwGr ‘Level the ground!’ b. When the following onset is a labial a-m-b6rbGr ‘Make ﬂuﬀy!’ f6rfGr ‘Breed worms!’ m6rmGr ‘Be skinny!’ c. When the following onset is a dorsal a-]-gw6rgwGr ‘Roar!’ gw6rgwGr ‘Burrow!’ k’6rk’Gr ‘Prevent!’

The liquid [r] is licit as the ﬁrst member of a cluster irrespective of whether the second consonant is a coronal, a labial or a dorsal. Given our discussion, this shows that [r] also is less marked than labial and dorsal consonants.

6.5

Conclusion

I have proposed a hierarchical structure for the three articulators and shown that the hierarchy naturally expresses not only their markedness but also the grouping of dorsals with labials in some processes and with coronals in others, even in the same language. I have also shown that cluster simpliﬁcation in totally reduplicated verbs, which is assumed to be determined by the markedness of the segments in the cluster, supports this proposal. When the least marked segments (coronals) appear in the coda, simpliﬁcation does not occur. When the most marked

ON THE ARTICULATORS OF CONSONANTS

183

segments (labials) appear in the coda, simpliﬁcation takes place. Dorsals found in the coda delete only if the following onset is the least marked obstruent (coronal). The liquid [r] is allowed to occur before and after every consonant but there is a strong tendency to syllabify it as a coda. So far we have mainly investigated alternations in consonants, such as devoicing, strengthening and nasalization. These processes give rise to sounds such as [p, t, k], homorganic nasals and a lateral, which are lacking from the underlying consonant inventory of Chaha given in Table 1.3. In addition, we have brieﬂy discussed the role of the place features of consonants on cluster restrictions. Next we will discuss the functioning of vocoids /U, I/ and their role in the emergence of new sounds, such as the labiovelars [f w, gw] from labials or velars /f, g/, the palatals [k’y, y] from velars or coronals /k’, r/ and the alveopalatals such as [w, Š] from the coronals /s, z/.

C 7 Labialization and Palatalization Triggered by /U/

7.1

Introduction

In this chapter I show that /U/ (representing [u] and [w]) triggers both labialization and palatalization and I discuss the interaction of the two processes. I share with Kaye and Lowenstamm (1984: 132–3) the position that [u] and [w] are two diﬀerent manifestations of a single phoneme /U/, i.e. [u] is a nuclear and [w] a nonnuclear /U/. I also assume the uncontroversial idea that /U/ is a labiovelar, which I view as including both Labial and Dorsal articulators. I argue that the Labial and Dorsal articulators of /U/ dominate the features [round] and [high] respectively. In addition, I propose that these features dissociate from their articulators, resulting in autonomously ﬂoating [round] and [high] features. This triggers labialization or/and palatalization as a third manifestation of /U/ (the ﬁrst two being [u] and [w]). This analysis will explain the otherwise unsolved question in the grammar of Chaha that, given the appropriate context, labialization entails palatalization. This chapter is organized as follows. In §7.2 I present labialization and palatalization triggered by some derivational suﬃxes and I propose that both processes are triggered by /U/. Derivational inﬁxes involving /U/ are discussed in §7.3 and inﬂectional suﬃxes involving /U/ in §7.4. In §7.5 I argue that wordinitial /U/ does not ﬂoat and triggers neither labialization nor palatalization. In §7.6 I discuss labialization and palatalization triggered by a radical /U/ and argue that it oﬀers independent support for my proposal. In §7.7 I introduce U-triggered palatalization in Tigrinya and show that it supports my proposal. In §7.8 I argue that there is no ﬂoating vs. nonﬂoating /U/ diﬀerence in Chaha. §7.9 concludes the discussion. Finally, some previous factual errors concerning labialization in some forms are discussed in an appendix to this chapter.

186 7.2

SOUND MUTATIONS

Derivational suﬃxes involving /U/

Chaha has some derivational suﬃxes involving /U/ which form verbal participles, nouns and adjectival/nominal participles from roots. For instance, from the root –t’ös ‘roast’ we derive the verbal participle t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’ and the adjectival/nominal participle t’GöwGs → t’us ‘roasted (meat)’, where meat is implicit. Similarly, from –sröt ‘sojourn’ we derive the noun sGrpw6c6 ‘good-bye’, etc. I assume that roots are not speciﬁed for category. So, the diﬀerent categories (verb, noun and adjective) are determined by aﬃxes, which is why I call the aﬃxes derivational. However, my analysis makes no formal distinction between derivational and inﬂectional aﬃxes. See Di Sciullo and Williams (1987: 69–71) for arguments that there is no reason for such a distinction. In this section, I will propose that labialization and palatalization in these forms are triggered by suﬃxes involving /U/. 7.2.1 Labialization and palatalization in verbal participles Some verbal participles are formed by labializing a rightmost labial or velar consonant of a root and concomitantly palatalizing a root-ﬁnal coronal obstruent, as in –t’ös → t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’. An exhaustive list of roots whose verbal participles include rightmost labialization and stem-ﬁnal palatalization is given in (1).1 The Imperative forms are given to show that labialization and palatalization in the past participle does not originate from the root. (The glosses given are those of verbal participles, shown in the second column. Unless speciﬁed otherwise, the discussion throughout this chapter refers to the column immediately before the gloss and the Imperative ( ), usually shown in the ﬁrst column, is given for comparison.)

1. Verbal participles employing a similar pattern but which do not have a corresponding verb, e.g. 6mw6c’ ‘not well cooked’, gw6Š6Š ‘strained the throat’, and gwGc’ ‘swallowed’, are found but will not be discussed as we have no evidence as to what the source of labialization and palatalization is. (But it is possible that gw in gwGc’ ‘swallowed’, is an occlusivized /U/ of wat’ ‘has swallowed’.) In addition, verbal participles with neither labialization nor palatalization, e.g. –k’rt’m → k’Grt’Gm ‘cut at once’, or with palatalization but no labialization, e.g. –röt’ → nGbGc’ ‘warmed slightly’, are found. I assume that such verbal participles do not contain the trigger of labialization and palatalization. These will not be discussed as they have no bearing on the point in discussion.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

(1)

187

Rightmost labialization and stem-ﬁnal palatalization in verbal participles Imperative Verbal participle a. t’Gös t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’ a-draft’ dGrf wGc’ ‘overstrained’ a-draxt dGrxwGc ‘hurried a lot’ a-fasGs f w6w6w ‘overﬂowed’ a-mGrt’ mwGrc’ ‘escaped unnoticed’ b6sbGs bw6wbw6w ‘sit still (to rot)’ w k’ 6nt’Gs k’wGnt’Gw ‘pinched’ m6t’Gs mwGt’Gw ‘broken at once by pulling’ mGzGz mwGŠGŠ/mwGŠŠ ‘drown out totally’ s6rk’Gt’ sGrk’wGc’ ‘hidden (as in an abyss)’ ‘struck (to death)’ (< –t’Imt) t’6mGt c’GmwGc w w b. bGk6t bGk Gc/b GkGc ‘exhausted (to death)’ ‘broken in big chunks’ gGms gGmwGw k’Gö6t’ k’GbwGc’ ‘disappeared completely’ a-k’ymamt’ k’GmwGc’ ‘well decorated’ c. b6rk’Gt’ bw6rk’6c’ ‘split open (as when giving birth)’ d. 6rk’ GnnGk’w ‘grabbed, hanged’ ‘coveted’ n6grGg nGgwnGgw t’Gr6k’ t’GnnGk’w ‘dried a lot’ t6-t’6n6k’ c’GnnGk’w ‘worried a lot’ (< –t’Irk’) e. k’Grf k’GnnGf w ‘struck down (to death)’ k’6mba k’6mbwa ‘broken at once’

Each verbal participle in (1a) has only one labializable root consonant, which is labialized. In (1b), each word has two labializable root consonants of which the last is labialized (though bwGkGc is also possible in (1b)). There are two labializable consonants in bw6rk’6c’, (1c), of which only the ﬁrst one (b) is labialized. That b in (1c) is labialized even though it is not the last labializable consonant shows that the one word in (1c) behaves diﬀerently than those in (1b). The ﬁnal coronal obstruent is palatalized in (1a–c), i.e. labialization of a nonﬁnal consonant entails palatalization of the ﬁnal coronal obstruent. The participles of (1d, e) display only labialization. Here, the ﬁnal velar in (1d) and labial in (1e) are labialized. The ﬁnal velars are not palatalized even though velars are palatalized in the 2 , e.g. /t-d6rg-I/ → [tGd6rgy] ‘you ( ) hit ’. (See §9.5.2 and Rose 1997 and the references therein for a discussion of the 2  palatalization.) In addition, nonﬁnal velar and coronal are not palatalized.

188

SOUND MUTATIONS

Even though the majority of the verbal participles in (1) have the epenthetic vowel sequence G-G, as in t’GbwGw, we also ﬁnd some forms such as f w6w6w, from (1a), and bw6rk’6c’, (1c), with a 6-6 sequence. This will have consequences later but for now I only note that both G-G and 6-6 are possible. It is also worth noting that the medial consonant in most of the triradicals is a simpliﬁed geminate and that simpliﬁcation does not apply to [nn] in (1d, f). This diﬀerence with respect to degemination does not exist in other geminate contexts, such as the Perfective, discussed in Chapter 4. It should also be noted that the CGCGC participles such as gGmwGw and t’GbwGw, from (1b), go against the rules of Chaha epenthesis (according to our discussion in §1.5.3 we expect *gGmww and t’Gbw(G)w) suggesting that, at this level of analysis, the medial consonants are geminates even phonetically. In contrast to English participles, which can be both adjectival as in fried chicken and verbal as in has fried, the participles of Chaha discussed above are only verbal since they cannot modify a noun, e.g. *t’GbwGw b6s6r (well-roasted meat) vs. t’us b6s6r ‘roasted meat’. They express an intensiﬁed/fast action of the root. They are semantically equivalent to Amharic t’GbbGss as in t’GbbGss al6 ‘it has been well roasted’ and t’GbbGss a-d6rr6g6 ‘he has roasted  well’. See Beyene (1980) for an analysis of similar forms in Amharic as intensive. The verbal participles require an auxiliary, as is the case in many languages. When the participle is followed by the auxiliary bar6-m ‘has become’ (lit. ‘has said’) the grammatical subject of the sentence is the object of the participle, as in b6s6r xwGta t’GbwGw bar6-m (lit. meat the well-roasted has-become) ‘the meat has been well roasted’. When the participle is followed by the causative auxiliary a-m6n6-m ‘has made’, the grammatical subject of the sentence is the subject of the auxiliary, as in b6s6r xwGta t’GbwGw a-mw6n6-nG-m (lit. meat the well-roasted hehas-made-it) ‘he has roasted the meat well’. The auxiliaries bar6-m and a-m6n6m conjugate for aspect, tense and agreement whereas the participles are invariable, e.g. t’GbwGw bar6-m ‘it has become well roasted’, t’GbwGw y6-ö6r ‘let it become well roasted’ t’GbwGw yG-öGr-te ‘it will become well roasted’. Having these introductory notes, we can now proceed to the main problem of the chapter: establishing the claim that labialization entails palatalization, and explaining it. 7.2.2 Decomposition of /U/ and /I/ I propose that the verbal participles of (1) have a CV(C)CVC-U pattern. Furthermore, the suﬃx /-U/, as well as any other /U/, consists of the articulators Labial dominating [round] and Dorsal dominating [high]. (See Sagey 1990 for organizing height and tongue position features of vowels under the articulator

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

189

Dorsal.) This is in  but, in Chaha, the features [round] and [high] dissociate from their articulators and they become autonomous (or ﬂoating), as shown in (2).2 See Johnson (1975: 34) for a view that such ﬂoating features start as an underlying vowel and Zoll (1996: 8) for the opposite view (i.e. [round] lacks a Root node even in ). In other words, the dual (Labial and Dorsal) nature of /U/ is responsible for labialization and palatalization. (2)

Decomposition of /U/ X

X

Root

Root

Place

Place

Labial

Dorsal

Labial

Dorsal

[round]

[high]

[round]

[high]

Decomposition of /U/, (2), allows [round] and [high] to realize independently, i.e. it makes them autonomous. [round] labializes the rightmost labializable consonant (labial or velar), as in (1). (In the absence of a labial or velar consonant some /U/ appear on a vowel while others do not surface, depending on the source and position of /U/ in the word, see §7.6.) [high] palatalizes a ﬁnal coronal obstruent, as in (1a–c). I claim that all /U/’s with the exception of root and word-initial /U/ ﬂoat in this manner (see §7.5 for initial /U/) and they end up with the representation shown on the right side of the arrow (→) in (2). My thesis is that the features [round] and [high] constitute a single phoneme /U/ in . But one may instead propose that [round] and [high] are two independent features representing either a discontinuous morpheme or two diﬀerent morphemes. Such a proposal (where labialization and palatalization belong to two diﬀerent morphemes) has been advanced for the impersonal (see, for example, Leslau 1967: 1153, McCarthy 1983: 181, Lieber 1988: 200 and Rose 1994b: 117). But we will see as we proceed that given the appropriate context, i.e. in a conﬁguration where a labial or velar consonant is followed by a coronal obstruent, labialization entails palatalization. This shows that the two processes

2. As Chaha has no front round vowel, [round] implies [back]. Hence, [back] in /U/ is redundant, which is why it is suppressed in (2). An intermediate node Peripheral (dominated by Place and dominating both Labial and Dorsal) is suppressed for simplicity.

190

SOUND MUTATIONS

are dependent on each other, i.e. they are concomitant. This indicates that [round] and [high] are not underlyingly independent features. Decomposition of /U/ is thus required. As I will argue in Chapter 9, the allomorphy in object suﬃxes known as Heavy-Light alternation justiﬁes the presence of the bare articulator node Dorsal shown on the right side of (2). It also follows that the features neither represent a discontinuous morpheme nor belong to diﬀerent morphemes. The phoneme /U/ undergoes ﬁssion resulting in autonomously ﬂoating [round] and [high]. The features ﬂoat leftward and dock on the appropriate host, which is the nearest preceding labial or velar for [round] and a left-adjacent coronal obstruent for [high] (i.e. no phonetic consonant intervenes between the palatalization target and trigger). Accordingly, the verbal participle t’GbwGw can be represented as follows: (3)

Verbal participle labialization and palatalization Root t’ G öö G s +

Place

t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’

Labial = [round]

Dorsal = [high]

Hence, the targets of [round] and [high], i.e. of labialization and palatalization respectively, are distinct.3 As shown in (3), the features of /U/ are realized on distinct segments, i.e. while producing a word like [t’GbwGw], lip rounding (for [bw]) is accompanied by retracting and raising of the tongue body (for [w]). On the interaction of lip rounding and tongue-body raising see, among others, Stevens, Keyser and Kawasaki (1986), Perkell, Matthies, Svirsky and Jordan (1993), and De Jong (1995). In feature-geometric terms, [round] targets the nearest preceding Peripheral node whereas [high] targets the left-adjacent Coronal node. See Akinlabi (1996: 246) for a diﬀerent view. In my analysis, not all features of /U/ are found in a labialized or palatalized consonant. For instance, [bw] in (3) does not include [high] and [w] does not include [round]. Similarly, rounding of a vowel such as /6/ yields a nonhigh

3. The movement of [high] to the left is limited to the left-adjacent consonant. This suggests that [high] is not as free as [round] to move away from its base position.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

191

round vowel [o], and not a high round vowel [u], supporting the claim that labialization attributes the feature [round] and not [high]. Vocalization of a labialized [öw] yields [u], e.g. sGöwGr → sur ‘broken’, which seems to suggest that [öw] includes not only the feature [round] but also [high] of [u]. In my view, [high] originates from [G] (which are adjacent to [öw]) and the feature that [u] obtains from [öw] is only [round]. Nevertheless, because all round vowels are [+back] in Chaha, rounding implies backing (/6, G/ → [o, u]). This can be expressed by a redundancy rule, [round] → [+back]. Palatalization in Chaha is normally triggered by /I/, which represents the high front vowel [i] and the palatal glide [y] observed in other Semitic languages of Ethiopia. Alveolars, velars and vowels are palatalized in the 2  irrespective of diﬀerences in the aspect of the verb. This is an established fact (see Rose 1994a and the references therein) and I will not deal with it here. (See below on dissociation of the palatalizing terminal feature [−back] from Dorsal.) But one crucial diﬀerence between alveolars and other palatalization targets needs to be emphasized. Consider the following examples: (4)

2 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

 palatalization /UAt’-I/ → [wac’] /a-t’fA-I/ → [a-t’if6] /UGt’A-I/ → [wGc’6] /dAk’-I/ → [dak’y] /k’Am-I/ → [k’yam] /t’Af-I/ → [t’7f] /fAf-I/ → [f7f] /d6kGm-I/ → [d6kyGm] /kGtGf-I/ → [kGtif]

‘Swallow!’ ‘Ruin!’ ‘Go out!’ ‘Laugh!’ ‘Eat  small (e.g. c’at, sugar)!’ ‘Patch!’ ‘Scrape!’ ‘Bash!’ ‘Hash!’

The alveolar /t’/ in (4a) is left adjacent to /I/ and it is palatalized. But /t’/ in (4b) is not left adjacent to /I/ in  and it is not palatalized. The /A/ in (4c) does not preclude palatalization of /t’/ showing that an intervening /A/ is ignored.4 The velar /k’/ in (4d, e) is palatalized irrespective of whether or not it is left adjacent to /I/. /A/ (or any vowel) is palatalized when it is neither left adjacent to /I/ nor right adjacent to a velar, (4f, g) vs. (4e). In other words, any vowel (including an empty V, e.g. (4b)) is palatalized/fronted when it is followed by a labial and, either no dorsal precedes as in (4b, f, g, h) or a coronal intervenes between the

4. The observations about (4a–c) also hold for /r/, e.g. /gGfGr-I/ → [gGﬁ] ‘release!’, /sGr6f-I/ → [sGref] ‘be sacred!’ and /öGrA-I/ → [bGy6] ‘eat!’

192

SOUND MUTATIONS

vowel and preceding dorsal as in (4i). (However, see Rose 1994a, for variations concerning an intervening /r/.) Based on these, we can formulate (5a, b, c) about palatalization in general. See Rose (1992, 1997) for similar generalizations about the 2  palatalization. (5)

a. b.

c.

Coronal Palatalization Coronals are palatalized only if they are left adjacent to a trigger. Dorsal Palatalization Dorsals are palatalized if no coronal intervenes between them and a following trigger. But a nonﬁnal /r/ may allow palatalization of a preceding dorsal. Vowel Palatalization A vowel is palatalized when it is followed by a labial and, either no dorsal precedes it or a coronal intervenes between the vowel and preceding dorsal.

In my opinion, Labialization (which aﬀects dorsals and labials) and Dorsal Palatalization (which aﬀects dorsals) are not subject to locality conditions because these involve manipulation of a single terminal feature, namely [round] for Labialization and [−back] for Dorsal Palatalization. However, Coronal Palatalization (which aﬀects coronals) requires that the target and trigger be adjacent because Coronal Palatalization involves fusion of the Root nodes of the target and trigger. This view is supported by the fact that Labialization and Dorsal Palatalization do not introduce a change in other features such as continuancy (e.g. a palatalized velar stop remains stop) whereas Coronal Palatalization does (e.g. it changes stops to aﬀricates and /r/ to [y]). I assume that the palatalizing -I has a salient feature [−back], located under the articulator node Dorsal. Parallel to the dissociation of the features [round] and [high] of /U/ from Dorsal (above), [−back] dissociates from its Dorsal, as shown in (6). (6) Decomposition of /I/ X → X | | Root Root | | Place Place | | Dorsal Dorsal | [−back] [−back]

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

193

The abandoned Dorsal of /I/ remains unpronounced whereas [−back] docks on a preceding target and triggers palatalization, following (5a, b, c). I have claimed that /U/ also triggers palatalization of coronal obstruents. So, there are at least two diﬀerent triggers of palatalization: /U/ and /I/. I will also show in this chapter that all restrictions on U-triggered palatalization follow from Coronal Palatalization given in (5a) and the claim that U-triggered palatalization targets only coronal obstruents. /U/ also palatalizes /r/ but only in one context, to be discussed in §7.6.6. 7.2.3 Labialization and palatalization in nouns I have stated that /U/ always triggers labialization of the nearest preceding labial or velar and concomitant palatalization of a left-adjacent coronal obstruent. To verify this, an exhaustive list of masculine singular Imperatives involving neither labialization nor palatalization but whose corresponding derived nouns include labialization and a suﬃx -6 is given below. (The glosses given are those of nouns.) (7)

Rightmost labialization and stem-ﬁnal coronal obstruent palatalization Imperative Noun a. a-d6md aj-j6mw6j-6 ‘ to be delivered’ ‘well’ (g6du in Harari) gGdGd gw6j-6 nGk’(G)t’ n6k’w6c’-6 ‘pole to which cows are attached’ s6mbGt sGrpw6c-6 ‘good-bye’ ‘choice’ s6p(G)t wGpwac-6 t’Göt’ t’wac’-6 ‘handful’ b. k’at’Gr k’wat’6r-6 ‘knot’ ‘someone grown only physically’ sGk’Gr s6k’w6r-6 k’GöGr k’6pw6r-6 ‘stage of 6s6t-plant (after plantation)’ c. kGt(G)f kGtf w-6 ‘dish of hashed meat/cabbage’ ‘sale on credit’ < –gIdm g6tGm gyGt6mw-6 fGk’a f6k’w6 ‘split (wood)’ d. bGda 6j6-w6c6 ‘thanksgiving’ w fGt’a f 6c’6 ‘stage of 6s6t (where leaves are cut oﬀ)’

As can be observed from the list, labialization is accompanied by palatalization of a stem-ﬁnal coronal obstruent in (7a). Neither the ﬁnal r nor the medial coronal obstruents of (7b) are palatalized. In (7c), a ﬁnal labial or velar consonant is

194

SOUND MUTATIONS

labialized and medial coronal obstruents are not palatalized. But a medial coronal obstruent is palatalized if only a vocoid intervenes between a coronal and the right edge of the word, (7d). All the facts indicate that labialization and palatalization in these nouns function like the verbal participles discussed in §7.2.1. (There is also the noun 6gwŠ-a ‘ally’ which derives from –Agz. Labialization and palatalization in this word function like (7a) but the suﬃx here is -a instead of -6.) My solution for the nouns in (7) is that they have a suﬃx /-U6/, e.g. /r6k’6t’-U6/ → [n6k’w6c’-6]. In all these cases, Decomposition of /U/, (2), causes [round] and [high] to dissociate from their articulators and become autonomous, independently ﬂoating leftward. The feature [round] labializes the nearest preceding labial or velar, and the feature [high] palatalizes the left-adjacent coronal obstruent (adjacency is computed at the underlying level). A radical /A/ intervening between a coronal obstruent and /U/, as in /f6t’A-U/ → [f w6c’6], from (7d), does not block palatalization. (I assume without argument that /A/ lacks the necessary node to disrupt adjacency.) A stem-ﬁnal r is not palatalized because r is not targeted by U-triggered palatalization except under certain conditions to be deﬁned in §7.6.6. The t’ as in /k’At’6r-U6/ → [k’wat’6r6] is not palatalized because of Coronal Palatalization, given in (5a), which requires a coronal target to be left adjacent to the trigger (here /U/) of palatalization. There is a historical source for the proposed suﬃx /-U6/, whose manifestation is -o in Amharic, e.g. kGtf-o ‘dish of hashed meat’ (from –ktf ‘hash’), k’at’6lo ‘blaze, burning’ (from –k’At’l ‘burn’), mag6d-o ‘ﬁrewood’ (from –mAgd ‘stoke  up, fuel’), mGrk-o ‘captive, booty’, (from –mArk ‘capture’), etc. As noted for similar Amharic nouns in Leslau (1995: 243), most of the Chaha nouns in (7) express the resulting substance of an action denoted by the root. Dillmann (1907: 257) states: “accented termination o¯ … is chieﬂy of service in the derivation of Names of the products of artistic skill [his italic]”, showing that similar generalizations hold also in Geäez. This suggests that the nouns are derived by adding a suﬃx which includes /U/, such as /-U6/. The /U/ fuses with /6/ in Amharic and Geäez to yield [o] whereas in Chaha the features of /U/ ﬂoat and trigger labialization and palatalization. Labialization in the nouns of (8) function in a similar fashion even though they do not have a suﬃx -6. Nevertheless, these nouns do not display palatalization. (8) Imperative Noun a. gGdGd gwGdGd ‘torn, hole’ m6t’Gs mwGt’Gs ‘someone who is scanty’ b. g6rdGf gGrdGf w-6r ‘ which is not ground ﬁne’ g6rdGm gGrdGmw ‘stage of 6s6t-plant (upper part is cut oﬀ)’

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

fGt’Gr k’GöGr m6zGr nGk’Gr

f wGt’Gr k’GwGr mwGzGr m6-]k’w6r

195

‘creation’ ‘plantation’ ‘count’ ‘stage of 6s6t-plant (ready for harvest)’

I assume that these nouns have a suﬃx /-U/. However, given this assumption, the ﬁnal coronal obstruents of (8a) are wrongly predicted to palatalize. I believe that these two nouns are a random list of exceptions to U-triggered palatalization. But the ﬁnal consonants in (8b) are expected not to palatalize as they are not coronal obstruents. 7.2.4 Labialization and palatalization in adjectival/nominal participles The proposal that /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalization also receives support from adjectival/nominal participles with the suﬃx -at, shown below.5 Here, too, the rightmost labial or velar is labialized and the root-ﬁnal coronal obstruent is palatalized, as in (9a). But r is not palatalized, (9b). In (9c), the stem-ﬁnal labials and velars are labialized. The stem-internal t’ in (9b, c) is not palatalized. These phenomena parallel those we saw in verbal participles and nouns. (The glosses given are those of adjectival/nominal participles.) (9)

Rightmost labialization and stem-ﬁnal palatalization in participles with -at Imperative Adjectival/nominal participle a. a-örak’(G)t’ a-örak’w6c’-at ‘spoiled (person)’ at-mat’Gt’ an-a-mw6c’6c’-at ‘without pity’ ‘very near (as to be stepped on)’ nGk’(G)t’ at-rak’w6c’-at w nGm6d nam 6j-at ‘beloved (person)’ b. dGöGr dapw6r-at ‘appended (, person)’ ‘quickly made (food)’ a-ft’Gr a-f w6t’6r-at bGx6r am-b6kw6r-at ‘without shortage’ sGöGr at-sapw6r-at ‘unhealthy’

5. I call the participles adjectival/nominal because they can be both adjectives and nouns, as is the English word working in the working classes and the workings of conscience. When the participle can be nominal I give its implicit noun in parentheses. These are what Dillmann (1907: 213) calls: “words which are not Self-dependent (Adjectives), but which state a conception as being realizable in a person or thing, and therefore always involve a reference to a person or thing, to which they are ready to be attributed, i.e. Descriptive or Qualifying Words [his italics].”

196

SOUND MUTATIONS

c.

a-k’wrat’Gö nGt’(G)k’

a-k’wrat’6w-at at-rat’6k’w-at

‘accumulated ()’ ‘snatched (e.g. while making mats)’

The root-ﬁnal vocoids /A/ in (10a), /I/ in (10b) and /U/ in (10c) delete before the suﬃx -at (or fuse with it). The radical preceding the deleted vocoid is palatalized if it is a coronal obstruent and labialized if it is a labial or velar. (10)

Root-ﬁnal vocoid a. k’Gt’a nGga wGt’a b. 6r6gy c. t’u < tGöw

before -at a-]-k’w6c’-at a-r6kw-at at-wac’-at 6r6gw-at a-t’6pw-at

‘rude (person)’ ‘coagulated (milk, butter, etc.)’ ‘contributed (money, butter, etc.)’ ‘thrown ()’ ‘suckled (mother)’

My solution to the participles in (9) and (10) is that their surface suﬃx [−at] derives from /-Uat/. The [round] and [high] features of /U/ from /-Uat/ dissociate and become autonomous following (2). They independently ﬂoat leftward to labialize the nearest preceding labial or velar and palatalize the left-adjacent coronal obstruent, as in /a-örak’6t’-Uat/ → [a-örak’w6c’-at]. When the stem-ﬁnal radical is labial or velar (as in examples (b, c)) there is no left-adjacent coronal obstruent to be palatalized, which explains the absence of palatalization. 7.2.5 Adjectival/nominal participles involving reduplication and a suﬃxal /U/ In this section, I present adjectival/nominal participles involving either total or medial reduplication. The stem-internal vocalism of these participles may include underlying vowels such as 6 or a, indicating that it is not occupied by /U/. These participles undergo both labialization and palatalization, as in (11). Here, too, labialization targets the root-initial labial or velar and palatalization targets the root-ﬁnal coronal obstruent. As usual, palatalization does not occur if the stemﬁnal consonant is not a coronal obstruent. (11) a. b.

Labialization in participles involving reduplication and a suﬃx -at Root Imperative Adjectival/nominal participle

–öt’ –k’r –fr –gö

b6t’bGt’ k’Grak’Gr a-frafGr a-göagGö

bwGc’abw6c’-at k’wGrak’w6r-at a-f(w)raf w6r-at a-gö/wak6w-at

‘stirred (cheese and whey)’ ‘mixed (, someone)’ ‘dirtied (cloth, food)’6 ‘crowded (plantation)’

6. fr may metathesize to rf to yield a-rf(w)an6f w-at ‘dirtied’. See §6.4 on metathesis.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

c.

d.

–t’m –zg

a-t’mat’Gm a-z6zGg

a-t’m(w)at’6mw-at a-z6zgw-at

–röt’ –rk’t’ –zmd –ft’r –k’Irö –rk’m –t’rm –rgf –t’rk’ –t’Irk’

a-röaöt’ a-rk’ak’(G)t’ zGmamd a-ft’at’Gr a-k’yrarGö a-rk’ak’Gm a-t’rarGm a-rgagGf a-t’rark’ a-c’rark’

a-rb(w)abw6c’-at a-rk’(w)ak’w6c’-at zGm(w)amw6j-at a-f wt’at’6r-at a-k’yran6w-at a-rk’ak’6mw-at a-t’ran6mw-at a-rgag6f w-at a-t’ran6k’w-at a-c’ran6k’w-at

197

‘curved (road, horn, etc.)’ ‘ thrown in a spiral motion’ ‘soft and slim (wGsa-bread)’ ‘winnowed (grain)’ ‘mixed (cabbage and cheese)’ ‘very quickly made (food)’ ‘near’ ‘picked’ ‘darken (face, clay)’ ‘fallen (ﬂour from sieve)’ ‘dried (coﬀee grain)’ ‘dripped (milk)’

The participles in (11) have the same /-Uat/ of (9) and (10), i.e. their pattern is CCaCC6C-Uat (excluding the preﬁx a-). The only diﬀerence here is that they display reduplication; a biradical reduplicates totally when it is supplied with CCaCC6C-Uat, cf. (11a, b), and a triradical undergoes medial reduplication when supplied with the same pattern, cf. (11c, d). (The quadriradicals –k’Irö and –t’Irk’ of (11d) behave like triradicals.) See also Prunet and Petros (1996) for diﬀerent types of reduplication to satisfy a unique local-movement pattern. One problem concerning the forms in (11b, c) is whether both tokens of the reduplicated consonant should be labialized or not. There is no consistency among diﬀerent speakers. For instance, Leslau (1979: vol. I) records a-rbabw6c’at in which only the second b is labialized and zGmwamw6j-at in which both m’s are labialized. I personally labialize both consonants in each word but I also accept forms in which only the last labial or velar is labialized, so I parenthesized the ﬁrst w to indicate that it is optional. Note, however, that both tokens must be labialized in (11a) (and (12) below). In addition, both tokens must be palatalized in bwGc’abw6c’-at (not *bwGt’abw6c’-at) ‘stirred (cheese and whey)’, from (11a), and in all the participles of (12). (12)

Labialization and palatalization in participles with -6(r) Root Imperfective Participle –ft f6tfGt f wGcf wGc-6(r) ‘() crumbled’ –ft’ f6t’fGt’ f w6c’f w6c’-6 ‘worst quality (wGsa to be discarded)’ –k’t’ k’6t’k’Gt’ k’wGc’k’wGc’-6(r) ‘beaten (chain ornament)’ –k’t’ k’6t’k’Gt’ k’wGc’k’wac’-6 ‘beaten (chain on which to keep keys)’ –kt k6tkGt kwGckwGc-6(r) ‘mashed (type of dish from 6s6t-root)’

198

SOUND MUTATIONS

My assumption is that all the participles in (12) use a CVCCVC-U6(r) pattern and that the biradicals reduplicate totally to satisfy this pattern. In addition, the features of /U/ ﬂoat to labialize the nearest preceding labial or velar and palatalize the left-adjacent coronal obstruent of the root. So, labialization and palatalization aﬀect both copies of the reduplicated consonant, i.e. /ft-U6(r)/ → [f wGcf wGc6(r)].7 This generalization holds also for the participles of (11) except that labializing the ﬁrst token of a reduplicated consonant is optional if this consonant is in a noninitial position, as in (11b, c). What characterizes (11) and (12) is that labialization and palatalization are accompanied by a suﬃx. In my view, these two processes are triggered by U-initial suﬃxes. Because /U/ is a suﬃx, it targets the ﬁnal radical, labializes it if it is labial or velar, and palatalizes it if it is a coronal obstruent. A possible origin of the proposed ending /-Uat/ of the participles, (9)–(11), is the ending of the   participle k’Gt(t)ul-at of other Ethiopian Semitic languages such as Amharic k’Gddus-at and Geäez k’GddGs-at ‘saints ()’ but without gender distinction. See Dillmann (1907: 258) for an opinion that the -at of such words (his -aØ t) sometimes originate from -o¯t. Similarly, I assume that the /-U6(r)/ of (12) is the masculine plural marker ending -an of other Ethiopian Semitic languages found as in Amharic k’Gddus-an ‘saints ()’ but again without gender distinction. See Dillmann (1907: 259–60) for an opinion that the -an of such words (his -aØ n) sometimes surfaces as -o¯n, e.g. Amharic z6yt-o¯n ‘oliveyard’ or even -a¯m as in Amharic t’Grs-am ‘one who has large teeth’. 7.2.6 Inﬁnitives in Inor As detailed in Hetzron and Marcos (1966), the inﬁnitive in Inor (called Ennemor in Amharic) is formed by labialization and palatalization, accompanied by a preﬁx 6- and a suﬃx -t, as exempliﬁed below.8 (The same generalization holds for Endegenˇ, see Leslau 1992: 472.)

7. Rarely, nouns with palatalization alone are found, e.g. m6t’mGt’ ‘rot!’ vs. mGc’mac’-6 ‘ rotten’. Two possible explanations are available for such nouns: (a) palatalization in them is triggered by /I/, or (b) [round] of /U/ is lost. 8. The inﬁnitival suﬃx in Chaha is /-ot/. See Hetzron and Marcos (1966: 26, note 20) and the references there for a proposal that the inﬁnitival suﬃx in Inor also derives from a historical *-ot. The stem-ﬁnal voiced obstruents devoice in the Inﬁnitive due to voicing assimilation with the following t.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

(13)

Inﬁnitives in Inor Imperative a. dGrg b. dGmd c. gGr6z d. z6pGr e. nGz6z f. z6nGr

199

(data from Hetzron and Marcos 1966: 25–28) Inﬁnitive 6-dGrgw-t ‘to beat’ 6-dGmwc-t ‘to join’ 6-gwr6w-t ‘to age’ w 6-z6p Gr-t ‘to return’ 6-nŠ6w-t ‘to dream’ 6-z6nGr-t ‘to veil’

In (13a), there is only labialization of the ﬁnal velar. In (13b, c), the last labial or velar is labialized and the ﬁnal coronal obstruents are palatalized. The coronal sonorant r is not palatalized, (13d). There is no labializable consonant in (13e) so we only have stem-ﬁnal palatalization. There is no labializable or palatalizable consonant in (13f) so neither labialization nor palatalization occurs. These data parallel the rightmost labialization and stem-ﬁnal palatalization in Chaha. Assuming that the inﬁnitival aﬃx in Inor is /-Ut/ this is one more argument that /U/ triggers labialization of the nearest preceding labial or velar and palatalization of a left-adjacent coronal obstruent. It is proposed that all the forms discussed so far have a U-initial suﬃx and that the /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalization. Leaving other possible questions aside, one may wonder why /U/ is treated as a suﬃx, and not as an inﬁx, for instance, as found in the Geäez form k’Gtul. Here I brieﬂy comment on this issue. Note that some verbal participles, e.g. f w6w6w and bw6rk’6c’, from (1), have the vowel sequence 6-6. In addition, the stem-internal vowels of the nouns in (7) vary, e.g. 6-6-6 in n6k’w6c’6, G-a-6 in wGpwac6 and G-6-6 in sGrpw6c6 and so on. Similarly, the stem-internal vowels of the adjectival/nominal participles in (9) are a-6 as in at-rak’w6c’-at, 6-6 as in a-f w6t’6r-at. Had the proposed /U/ been steminternal, these stems could have at least one epenthetic vowel [G] because the “departure” of /U/ should result in [w(…)G], not [w(…)6] or [w(…)a] (see Lowenstamm 1991a: 960 for a compatible proposal). This proves that /U/ in these forms is not stem-internal and that these forms do not have an underlying k’Gtul pattern, which we discuss in the following section.

7.3

Derivational infix /U/

Ethiopian Semitic languages form some of their participles with a CG(C)CuC pattern, as in the Geäez forms k’Gtul, k’Gttul or k’Grtul, which all include a steminternal G-u vocalism. It should be noted that the [u] here is not part of the root,

200

SOUND MUTATIONS

as it is not found in most of the verbal paradigm, e.g. k’6t6l. See Dillmann (1907: 227–9) for such patterns in Geäez, Leslau (1941: 93–4) in Tigrinya, Raz (1983: 28, 33) in Tigre, Leslau (1992: 224) in Soddo (only for some examples) and Leslau (1995: 224) in Amharic. Due to the ﬂoating nature of /U, I/ in most of the Gurage languages participles such as k’Gtul and k’6tali are assumed to have disappeared from these languages (see Leslau 1992: 254, 275, 564).9 My claim will be that Chaha, like other Ethiopian Semitic languages, has adjectival/nominal participles, nouns and verbal participles which display the CV(C)CC pattern. The analysis so far predicts that the ﬁnal C of CV(C)CC may not be targeted by labialization and palatalization. This is because /U/ is claimed to labialize the nearest preceding labial or velar and to palatalize a left-adjacent coronal obstruent. The analysis also predicts that the stem-ﬁnal nucleus of the CV(C)CC pattern (i.e. the original site of /U/) may not be occupied by any other underlying vowel, since it belongs to /U/. In this subsection, I show that such forms conﬁrm these predictions and support my claim that /U/ both labializes and palatalizes. I have shown that when labialization and palatalization are triggered by a suﬃxal /U/ they target a stem-ﬁnal consonant; labialize it if it is labializable, e.g. /t’GrrGk’-U/ → [t’GnnGk’w] ‘dried a lot’ and palatalize it if it is palatalizable, e.g. /a-örak’6t’-Uat/ → [a-örak’w6c’-at] ‘spoiled (person)’. If the stem-ﬁnal consonant is not an appropriate target for both, labialization targets a preceding consonant while palatalization does not occur, e.g. /a-f6t’6r-Uat/ → [a-f w6t’6r-at] (not *[a-f w6c’6r-at]) ‘quickly made’. However, in the following subsections, I will present forms (adjectives, nouns and passive participles) in which the ﬁnal root consonant is unaﬀected regardless of it being an appropriate target. I will explain this by proposing that the trigger (/U/) precedes the ﬁnal consonant, as observed in the Geäez forms k’Gtul, k’Gttul and k’Grtul. 7.3.1 Nonrightmost labialization and stem-internal palatalization The adjectives and/or nouns in (14a, b) show that an aﬃx can trigger palatalization of a stem-internal coronal obstruent. In addition, as noted in Rose (1994b: 117), it is not the last labial or velar which is labialized in (14a).

9. The active participle k’6tali pattern also exists as in faraç ‘patient’ from /faraxI/, c6wac ‘worker’ from /c6watI/ and c’ak’waw ‘beggar’ from /c’ak’wasI/ but it will not be discussed in this book.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

(14)

Labialization and Imperative a. k’6rt’Gm fGt’Gm nGf(G)g t6-k’6n6ö b. m6tGr m6t’Gr b6tGr k’6mt’Gr xGdGr

201

stem-internal palatalization Adjective and/or noun k’wGrc’Gm ‘splinters of wood’ (noun) f wGc’Gm ‘closed, untouched’ (adj.) nGf w(G)g ‘avaricious’ (noun or adj.) w k’ GrGö ‘near’ (adj.) mwGcGr ‘stump’ (adj.) mwGc’Gr ‘cleansed’ (adj.) bwGcGr ‘diﬀerent’ (adj.) k’Gmwc’Gr ‘amputated’ (adj.) ‘clothes’ (noun) xwGjGr

In (14a, b), the ﬁnal labials and velars are not labialized and medial coronal obstruents are palatalized, i.e. labialization and palatalization aﬀect the medial radical but not the ﬁnal one. According to my analysis, a suﬃx-triggered labialization can target only the rightmost labial or velar. In addition, Coronal Palatalization, given in (5a), predicts that palatalization of the medial consonant cannot be triggered by a suﬃx since the target and the triggering suﬃx would not be adjacent. It then follows that the labializing and palatalizing aﬃx of (14a, b) is not a suﬃx. My solution is that the nouns and/or adjectives of (14) have a CG(C)CC pattern. We are now able to explain why /k’/ in k’wGrc’Gm is labialized instead of the last labializable consonant /m/, and why the stem-internal /t’/ is palatalized. In this view, the derivation of [k’wGrc’Gm] would be /k’Grt’Um/ → [k’wGrc’Gm] whereas that of gGrdGmw ‘stage of 6s6t-plant’, from (7c), would be /gGrdGm-U/ → [gGrdGmw]. As I have claimed in §7.2.2, the autosegments of /U/ in /k’Grt’Um/ dissociate and ﬂoat. Accordingly, [round] labializes the nearest preceding labial or velar and [high] palatalizes the left-adjacent coronal obstruent, as in k’wGrc’Gm. 7.3.2 Labialization and palatalization in adjectives and/or nouns with -a One more argument showing that the position of /U/, whether it is inﬁxal or suﬃxal, plays a role in determining which consonants are aﬀected comes from adjectives and/or nouns with a suﬃx -a. The stem-ﬁnal labials and velars of (15) are not labialized. (15)

Imperative g6tGm a-t’Gök’

Adjective and/or noun gwGcm-a ‘without stew (bread)’ tuk’-a < t’Göwk’-a ‘poles to tighten the roof’

202

SOUND MUTATIONS

The last labializable consonants of (15) are not labialized because they are stemﬁnal and /U/ precedes them. In my view, the ﬁrst example is derived as: /gGtUma/ → [gwGcma]. The fact that /m/ in [gwGcma] is not labialized follows from the leftward direction of ﬂoating. The fact that /t/ is palatalized follows from the claim that /U/ triggers palatalization. Absence of stem-ﬁnal labialization in (15) seems to be inconsistent with the data in (16), where the surface stem-ﬁnal consonants are labialized. (16)

Imperative nGma nGöa t’Gf we10

Adjective and/or noun nGmw-a ‘highly grown (grass)’ nGw-a < nGöw-a ‘split’ t’Gf w-a ‘satiation’

My proposal is that the labials of (16) are not the underlying stem-ﬁnal consonants. Comparison of the two columns in (16) shows that the ﬁnal radical is a vocoid. So, the ﬁrst example is derived as: /nGmUA-a/ → [nGmwa]. Again, the fact that /m/ in [nGmwa] is labialized follows from the leftward direction of ﬂoating. The same apparent contradiction is observed between (17) and (18). As can be deduced from the Imperative, t is stem-ﬁnal in (17) and stem-medial in (18), the ﬁnal radical being /A/ in (18). As a stem-ﬁnal consonant, t is not palatalized in the adjective of (17) while it is in (18). (17) (18)

Imperative kGft fGta

Adjective kGf wt-a f wGc-a

‘light-colored’ ‘solved (e.g. contradiction)’

(17) and (18) are derived as: /kGfUt-a/ → [kGf wta] and /fGtUA-a/ → [f wGca]. Again, the fact that /t/ in [kGf wta] is not palatalized follows from the leftward direction of ﬂoating. On the other hand, the diﬀerence, i.e. unpalatalized stemﬁnal vs. palatalized stem-medial consonant, is not observable in (19) vs. (20). (19)

(20)

Imperative gGfGr 6gGr k’Gö6r bGra mGra

Adjective (noun) gGf wr-a Ggwr-a k’ur-a < k’Göwr-a bwGr-a mwGr-a

‘abandoned (house)’ ‘owned (cattle)’ ‘not full, incomplete’ ‘glutton(ous), 6s6t-eating insect’ ‘full, complete’

10. The stem-ﬁnal /U/ of /t’Gf6U/ exceptionally palatalizes /6/ to [e] only in the Imperative.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

203

(19) and (20) are derived as follows: /gGfUr-a/ → [gGf wra] and /öGrUA-a/ → [bwGra]. But, whether r is stem-ﬁnal, as in (19), or stem-internal, as in (20), makes no diﬀerence because r is mostly not targeted by U-triggered labialization or palatalization. In this view, the forms in (15) to (20) employ a CVCC-a pattern, as in fat’ur-a, (21). However, fat’ur-a is an exception in not having the expected initial labialization and stem-internal palatalization, as in /fat’Ur-a/ → *[f wac’r-a], and preserving the /U/ as [u] in situ. (21)

Imperative fat’Gr

Adjective fat’ur-a

‘tall’

In (15) to (21), /U/ is located between the penultimate and the ﬁnal radical. So, the analysis predicts that the ﬁnal radical should not be targeted by /U/. It also predicts that the penultimate radical should be palatalized if it is a coronal obstruent and labialized if it is a labial or velar. If the penultimate consonant is not labialized, a preceding labial or velar should be labialized. All these predictions are borne out except for the form in (21). The other prediction is that, in forms with the CV(C)CC pattern, the last syllable nucleus may not be occupied phonetically by any vowel but [G]. This prediction is also conﬁrmed as can be veriﬁed in the adjectives and nouns discussed in §7.3.2. 7.3.3 Labialization without palatalization in adjectival/nominal participles The stem-ﬁnal coronals in the adjectival/nominal participles of (22) are not palatalized despite the fact that a preceding consonant is labialized. In other words, labialization in these participles does not entail palatalization. (22)

Labialization without palatalization Imperative Adjectival/nominal participle a. a-draxt dGrxwGt ‘hurry’ (noun) bGs6r bwGsGr ‘ripe (fruit, coﬀee, etc.)’ bGt’Gr bwGt’Gr ‘eighth (of wGsa bread)’ fGk’6r fGk’wGr ‘fat’ (noun and adj.) g6kGr gwGkwGr ‘straight, well-behaved’ gGmGm gGmwGmw ‘chipped, cut oﬀ (utensil)’ k’Gms k’GmwGs ‘tasty (food)’ ‘king’ (noun) nGg6s nGgwGs sGöGr sur < sGöwGr ‘broken’ sGk’Gr sGk’wGr ‘high, high up, top’ t6-f6]k’6k’ fG]k’wGk’w ‘careless (person)’

204

SOUND MUTATIONS

b.

t6kGr t’Gös fGr6t’ gGr6z mGrt’

tGkwGr t’us < t’Göws f wGrt’ gwGrz mwGrt’

‘cooked (food)’ ‘roasted (food)’ ‘blind (person)’ ‘old (person)’ ‘shaved, barren’ (adj.)

My analysis is that these participles also have the CG(C)CC pattern, i.e. /dGrxUt/ → [dGrxwGt] and /fGrUt’/ → [f wGrt’]. So, labialization should target the nearest labial or velar preceding /U/ and palatalization should target the penultimate radical (which is left adjacent to /U/). Assuming, as we have so far, that U-triggered palatalization does not target r, the r in (22) is predicted not to palatalize whether it is ﬁnal or medial. Therefore, absence of palatalization is due to the unavailability of the right target in the appropriate context. Nevertheless, the stem-medial coronal obstruents of bwGsGr ‘ripe (fruit, coﬀee, etc.)’ and bwGt’Gr ‘eighth (of wGsa bread)’ in (22a) are wrongly predicted to palatalize. A possible solution to this problem is to assume that such words are derived from a CCGC pattern, in which case only the initial consonant is predicted to be aﬀected. 7.3.4 Nonrightmost labialization in verbal participles We have seen so far that labialization in verbal participles targets the last labializable consonant, e.g. /k’GnnGf-U/ → [k’GnnGf w] ‘struck down’. However, in the verbal participles given in (23) it is not the last labial or velar which is labialized. (23)

Nonrightmost labialization Imperative Verbal participle a. fGrGm f wGnnGm ‘sliced at once’ w at-f6t’Gm f Gt’Gm ‘poured at once’ b. a-mGrg mwGnnGg ‘gone away completely’ a-mGrg mwGrg ‘slipped oﬀ easily’ m6c’(G)k’ mwGc’Gk’ ‘snatched fast’

My solution for the forms in (23) is that they have a CG(C)CC pattern. Given this, and accepting the claim that [round] targets the nearest preceding labial or velar, the ﬁnal labials of (23a) and velars of (23b) are predicted not to labialize. Nevertheless, /t’/ in /fGt’t’Um/ → [f wGt’Gm], from (23a), is incorrectly predicted to palatalize. I assume that it is an exception that does not follow from any other systematic process in Chaha. In §7.3.1 to §7.3.4 we have seen that adjectival/nominal and verbal participles displaying a CG(C)CC pattern support the claim that /U/ triggers labialization and palatalization.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

205

7.3.5 Adjectival/nominal participles involving reduplication and an inﬁx /U/ Three facts about the following participles, formed by total reduplication, deserve a critical observation. First, they have a G-G vowel sequence. Second, the ﬁnal coronal obstruents of (24a) are not palatalized. Third, the initial labials of (24b) are labialized despite the presence of a following velar. The ﬁnal r of (24c) is unaﬀected, as usual. (24)

Adjectival/nominal participles with total reduplication Root Imperative Adjectival/nominal participle a. –ös b6sbGs bwGsbwGs11 ‘rotten’ –öt’ b6t’bGt’ bwGt’bwGt’ ‘soiled, stirred’ –k’t’ k’6t’k’Gt’ k’wGt’k’wGt’ ‘castrated’ –gz g6zgGz gwGzgwGz ‘underdeveloped’ b. –ök’ b6k’bGk’ bwGk’bwGk’ ‘too soft (due to aging)’ –mk’ m6k’mGk’ mwGk’mwGk’ ‘very ripe’ –mx m6xmGx mwGxmwGx ‘jiggling’ – c. k’r k’6rk’Gr k’wGrk’wGr ‘prevented (grassland from being grazed)’ The G-G sequence suggests that the underlying stem-internal vowel is /U/, i.e. [bwGsbwGs] derives from /öUs/. Note that /U/ is not part of the root as it does not appear in the Imperative. So the three possible underlying bases of [bwGsbwGs] are /Uös/ (where /U/ is a preﬁx), /öUs/ (where /U/ is an inﬁx) and /ösU/ (where /U/ is a suﬃx). Candidate /Uös/ is excluded because initial /U/ does not ﬂoat, since ﬂoating in general is leftward (see §7.5). Candidate /ösU/ is also excluded because if /U/ followed the two radicals it would palatalize the ﬁnal coronal obstruent in (24a) and labialize the ﬁnal velar in (24b). The only remaining option is /öUs/, where /U/ is predicted to aﬀect /ö/ but not /s/. As predicted, /ö/ is labialized and /s/ remains unaﬀected, as shown by the reduplicated form [bwGsbwGs]. If we view labialization and palatalization in §7.3 (where I claim that the triggering /U/ is an inﬁx, e.g. /k’Grt’UGm/ → [k’wGrc’Gm]) as equivalent to the one in §7.2 (where the triggering /U/ is claimed to be a suﬃx, e.g. /t’GööGs-U/ → [t’GbwGw]), the data in §7.3 will contradict my claim that /U/ labializes the nearest preceding labial or velar and palatalizes a left-adjacent coronal obstruent. However, because the stems discussed in §7.3 involve an inﬁx /U/, and not a suﬃx /U/, it follows that their ﬁnal consonants should be neither labialized nor palatalized, as the /U/ targets only preceding radicals.

11. The medial [b] becomes a stop to preserve its identity with the initial one.

206

SOUND MUTATIONS

I showed that adjectival/nominal and verbal participles as well as nouns involving labialization undergo concomitant palatalization. I argued that this is explained by the proposal that the phoneme /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalization. I accounted for forms involving labialization without stem-ﬁnal palatalization and for nonrightmost labialization. I argued that nonrightmost labialization and stem-internal palatalization are also triggered by /U/ and I derived their diﬀerences by postulating that the /U/ in the latter forms is an inﬁx. Apparently, my argumentation here may seem circular since I propose a suﬃxal /U/ in one case and an inﬁxal /U/ in another in order for the labialization and palatalization facts to fall out properly. However, the presence of two diﬀerent morphological constructions is evident: semantically we need to distinguish the noun kGtf w6 ‘dish of hashed meat’ from the participle f wGc’Gm ‘absolute’ and their equivalents in other related languages, e.g. Amharic kGtfo and fGs’s’um, show that /U/ is external in the former and internal in the latter, which provides historical support to the two diﬀerent morphological constructions. There are no inﬂectional inﬁxes; all inﬁxes are derivational. Inﬂectional aﬃxes are either preﬁxes or suﬃxes but no preﬁxal /U/ ﬂoats (see 7.5.1). All ﬂoating inﬂectional aﬃxes are suﬃxes. My analysis predicts that a /U/ belonging to an inﬂectional suﬃx should trigger only rightmost labialization and stem-ﬁnal palatalization. It also predicts that in a succession of suﬃxes only the ones that precede the /U/ should be targeted by labialization and palatalization. I will now show that these predictions are borne out.

7.4

Inflectional suﬃxes involving /U/

Inﬂectional suﬃxes, such as the impersonal subject agreement, trigger labialization and palatalization. In this section, I present such suﬃxes and show that the two processes are concomitant, hence, support the proposal that both are triggered by the dissociated features of a unique phoneme /U/. 7.4.1 Impersonal labialization and palatalization Comparing the 2  with the impersonal shows that in the impersonal the ﬁnal labial or velar is labialized in (25a). In (25b, c, d, e), the last labial or velar is labialized and a ﬁnal coronal obstruent is palatalized. A coronal obstruent which is followed by a root-ﬁnal radical /A/ is palatalized, (25d). Nonﬁnal labialization, (25b, c, d), entails palatalization of a ﬁnal coronal obstruent but in the absence of a labializable consonant palatalization alone occurs, as in (25e).

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

207

In the absence of a labializable or palatalizable consonant, neither labialization nor palatalization takes place, as in (25f).12 (25)

Impersonal labialization and palatalization (in the Imperative) 2  impersonal a. b. c. d. e. f.

fGr6x sGr6f kGft gGr6z fGta t’as nGt’Gr

fGr6xw sGr6f w kGf wc gwGr6Š f wGc6 t’aw nGt’Gr

‘Tolerate!’ ‘Be scared!’ ‘Open!’ ‘Age!’ ‘Untie!’ ‘Infringe!’ ‘Separate (from the teats)!’

It is established that *-u: ‘ ’ is the origin of impersonal labialization (see Rose 1994b: 116–7 for an overview). On the other hand, the impersonal palatalization has been analyzed as a byproduct of the following object suﬃx -i, as in Leslau (1967: 1155) and Lieber (1988: 200). However, Leslau (1967: 1153) and Hetzron (1971: 200) also show that impersonal palatalization occurs even in the absence of an object suﬃx, as in the converb k6f w6cG-m ‘having opened’ and when the object suﬃx itself does not contain i, e.g. k6f w6c-r-a-m ‘one has opened it for her’. So, the impersonal suﬃx includes [round] and [high] irrespective of any object suﬃx. My analysis is that the impersonal suﬃx is /-U/, which like any other /U/ consists of [round] and [high], and that these features are autonomous, due to Decomposition of /U/, shown in (2). In this view, the impersonal suﬃx behaves exactly like the verbal participle suﬃx discussed in §7.2.1. Hence, a form like fGr6xw ‘tolerate!’ has an underlying /fGr6x-U/. (26)

Impersonal labialization and palatalization (/fGr6x-U/ → [fGr6xw]) X (Root) f G r 6 x +

Place

fGr6xw ‘Tolerate!’

Labial = [round]

Dorsal = [high]

12. The impersonal can also take the Jussive form with the preﬁx y6-, without incurring a meaning diﬀerence. See §8.3.4 for discussion.

208

SOUND MUTATIONS

The autonomous features [round] and [high] of /-U/ ﬂoat leftward independently. The left-adjacent (to /U/) consonant is not a coronal obstruent and cannot be targeted by [high], which remains aﬂoat, as in (26). The last labial or velar is /x/, which is targeted by [round]. This results in labialization. In this regard, the impersonal suﬃx conﬁrms the claim that /U/ labializes and palatalizes the consonants that precede it. An argument showing that an aﬃxal /U/ ﬂoats only leftward comes from (27a) Accusative and (27b) Malfactive of the impersonal (see Chapter 9 on case suﬃxes), which according to the present analysis are derived as follows: (27)

Absence of rightward labialization a. n6t’6r-U-y-a-m → n6t’6ryam ‘One has separated her.’ b. n6t’6r-U-p-a-m → n6t’6rpam ‘One has separated it to her detriment.’

There is no labializable consonant in the stem. Had the /U/ ﬂoated in both directions, m in (27a) and p in (27b) would have been labialized. But they are not. This shows that there is no rightward ﬂoating (at least in aﬃxes). 7.4.2 Interaction of impersonal labialization and palatalization A comparison between the second and the third columns of (28a–c) shows that velars are palatalized in the 2  but not in the impersonal. In (28a), the velar is ﬁnal and it is palatalized in the 2  while it is labialized in the impersonal. The nonﬁnal velars in (28b) are also palatalized in the 2  while they are not in the impersonal. Note that 2  palatalization targets even labialized velars, cf. 2  vs. 2  in (28c), whereas these velars are not targeted by the impersonal palatalization. (28)

2  vs. impersonal palatalization 2  2  impersonal a. fGr6x fGr6ç fGr6xw y b. nGk’Gm nGk’ Gm nGk’Gmw k’GfGf k’yGfGf k’Gf wGf w w y c. k’ Gm k’ Gm k’wGmw w y nGk’ nGk’ nGk’w w y t’6]k’ t’6\k’ t’6]k’w d. bGd6r bGde bwGd6r g. kGtGf kGtif kGtGf w sGr6f sGref sGr6f w t’af t’7f t’af w

‘Tolerate!’ ‘Collect!’ ‘Cut the nails!’ ‘Stop!’ ‘Yell!’ ‘Be deaf!’ ‘Be ﬁrst!’ ‘Hash!’ ‘Fear!’ ‘Write, patch!’

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

209

The stem-ﬁnal r in (28d) is palatalized in the 2  (6r-I → 6y → e) whereas it is not in the impersonal. In addition, a vowel preceding a stem-ﬁnal labial is fronted in the 2  but it is not in the impersonal, as in (28g). See e.g. Leslau (1992: 436) for observations that velars, r and n are not palatalized in the impersonal. Some solutions to account for the absence of palatalization in the impersonal, as in (28), have been proposed. The ﬁrst, proposed in Hetzron (1971: 199) and adopted in McCarthy (1983: 182) and Lieber (1988: 205), is that labialization (i.e. linking [round] in (29)) takes precedence in time over palatalization (i.e. a possible linking of [high] in (29)) and that the ﬁnal velar is labialized. This analysis assumes that velars, vowels and r could palatalize in the impersonal, as they do in the 2 , but gives no account of the absence of r-palatalization in bwGd6r, (28d). In this example, the target of [high] (i.e. the ﬁnal r) is not followed by the target of [round]. Yet, r is not palatalized, showing that ordering labialization and palatalization cannot explain the absence of r-palatalization. This forces us to state that r is not palatalized in the impersonal. In addition, the ordering analysis stipulates that labialization prevents palatalization whereas we see that even the basic labialized velar radicals of (28c) are palatalized in the 2 , showing that prior labialization does not prevent palatalization. Consider [fGr6xw], (29), reproduced from (26). (29)

Impersonal labialization and palatalization X (Root) f G r 6 x +

Place

fGr6xw ‘Tolerate!’

Labial = [round]

Dorsal = [high]

Given the fact that labialized velars can be palatalized, [high] in (29) could have displaced the [round] of /x/, the way the 2  palatalization displaces [round] in nGk’w-I → nGk’y ‘yell ()!’, from (28c). But this does not happen in (29), as noted in Rose (1994b: 118–9). So the fact that ﬁnal velars are not palatalized in the impersonal remains a problem for the ordering solution. Furthermore, in the Gurage language Inor masculine plural subject conjugation, coronals but not velars are palatalized, e.g. tG-k6fc-uwa ‘you ( ) open’ (not *tG-k6ft-uwa, from the stem k6ft) but tG-d6rg-uwa ‘you () hit’, (not *tG-d6rgy-uwa from the stem d6rg). This also shows the presence of some triggers of palatalization which

210

SOUND MUTATIONS

target coronals but not velars. My suggestion is that this trigger is the back high vowel /U/, as conﬁrmed by Inor masculine plural conjugation where U is realized as uw and yet triggers palatalization. Hetzron (1971: 199–200) and Rose (1994b: 118) observe that coronals but not velars are palatalized also in Inor   subject conjugation, e.g. k6f6j-a ‘has opened’ (from –kfd) vs. d6n6g-a (not *d6n6gy-a) ‘has hit’ (from –dng) even though there is no accompanying labialization or u. I have no account for palatalization in k6f6j-a. The other problem with linking order is that it does not account for the absence of nonﬁnal velar palatalization in the impersonal nGk’Gmw (not *nGk’yGmw) and k’Gf wGf w (not *k’yGf wGf w), (28b). Note that, in contrast to Coronal Palatalization, given in (5a), Dorsal Palatalization in (5b) does not require adjacency between the target and the trigger. The fact that Dorsal Palatalization aﬀects nonﬁnal velars in the 2  but not in the impersonal remains unexplained without the statement that the impersonal palatalization targets a ﬁnal consonant. Note that nonﬁnal coronals are not palatalized both in the 2  and impersonal due to Coronal Palatalization, which requires coronal targets to be left adjacent to the trigger. So, if we eliminate velars, vowels and r from the list of palatalizable consonants in the impersonal, the fact that impersonal palatalization targets only the ﬁnal coronal obstruents follows from Coronal Palatalization and it is not a particularity of the impersonal. In this account, there will be two lists of palatalizable consonants: nonlabials and vowels for 2  palatalization, and coronal obstruents for impersonal palatalization. This listing solution was proposed by Hetzron (1971: 199, even though he adopts the ordering solution for Chaha) and adopted by Rose (1994b: 119). In my view, the listing solution not only overcomes the problems encountered by the ordering solution but also ordering without the listing is fallible (because ﬁnal r and nonﬁnal velars are not palatalized in the impersonal) and that, given the invariably required listing, ordering has no place in the interaction of labialization and palatalization. Note also that listing, in conjunction with Coronal Palatalization, is suﬃcient to account for the interaction of the two processes, cf. the second and third columns of (28). Thus, Hetzron’s (1971) End Palatalization can be derived from Coronal Palatalization and the list. 7.4.3 Deriving the diﬀerent lists of palatalizable consonants Based on our discussion so far I hypothesize that the listing reﬂects the presence of at least two diﬀerent triggers of palatalization (/I/, found in front vowels and the glide y) and /U/, found in back vowels and the glide w). I also assume that a palatalizing /I/ attributes the feature [−back] (and a redundant [high]) to its

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

211

target while a palatalizing /U/ attributes the feature [high] to its target, and that the diﬀerence between the two triggers gives rise to the two lists of palatalization targets. According to Bhat (1978: 54) “[t]ongue height of the following vowel (or semivowel) is crucial for the palatalization of an apical consonant, whereas the frontness of the tongue rather than its height is more crucial for the palatalization of a velar consonant.” In other words, palatalizing a velar involves tongue fronting to make it a prevelar. This fronting can be achieved by attributing the [−back] of /I/ to a velar. But /U/ does not include [−back] so it cannot trigger fronting of velars. Note also that in Chomsky and Halle’s (1968) terms, velars are [+high, +back], so the [+high, +back] of /U/ cannot bring any change to them. Palatalization of vowels (e.g. 6 → e) involves tongue fronting, and this process requires [−back], a feature not found in /U/. This also explains why they are not targeted by U-triggered palatalization. On the other hand, palatalizing alveolars does not require tongue fronting, instead it involves tongue raising and retracting, processes which can be achieved by the features [high, +back] found in /U/. [high] in /U/ can trigger raising of the tongue blade, changing alveolars to palatoalveolars. We now have an explanation for the separate list of palatalizable consonants. Nonlabials (consonants and vowels) are targets of [−back] whereas only coronals are targets of [high]. So the two lists of palatalizable consonants derive from the intrinsic nature of the two diﬀerent triggers.13 Palatalizing velars before front vowels and coronals before high or front vowels, are reported in a variety of languages. According to Bhat’s (1978) list, the following languages display coronal palatalization before a high back vocoid (pages given below are those of Bhat 1978): I. In Papago, t, d, s and n are palatalized before i, e and u (p. 54, from Miller 1967) II. In Tepehuan d is palatalized before i, e and u (p. 54, from Miller 1967) III. In Basque, s is palatalized while adjacent to u (p. 54, from Lochak 1960) IV. In Proto-Iranian, s is palatalized by a preceding i and u (p. 55, from Anderson 1968) V. In Sentani, d is palatalized by a neighboring i, y, u and w (p. 55, from Cowan 1965)

13. It is unclear why /r/ in most cases does not pattern with coronal obstruents in being targeted by U-triggered palatalization. This may be because Coronal Palatalization targets the Coronal node while /r/ lacks this node (at least at the stage where palatalization occurs), as Rose (1994a) argues on independent grounds.

212

SOUND MUTATIONS

VI. VII. VIII.

In Avesta, IE s was changed to š before i, u, k and r (p. 62, from Anderson 1968) In Tswana, r becomes … šw when labialized (p. 57–8, from Cole 1955) In Burushaski, dentals are palatalized before the plural suﬃx -o which was probably -yo earlier (p. 74, from Lorimer 1935).

In addition to the above list, in Tigrinya numerals, in contact with back rounded (uæ , å) vowels or the high central (G) vowel, s is changed to w (Voigt 1988: 527, see also §7.7.4). Similarly, t in Japanese becomes affricate before /u/ (Tsujimura 1996: 32). Moreover, Press (1986: 3) states: “[T]he one undisputed source of y in PIE is *u¯ …” A similar process occurs also in English where /u/ triggers palatalization, e.g. fact vs. factual [fæktwu6l], as well as y–insertion, e.g. unity [yu:n6tI] (but see Chomsky and Halle 1968, Halle 1977, and Halle and Mohanan 1985 for analyses in which palatalization is triggered by the inserted y). Furthermore, [ua] in Akan triggers labio-palatalization whereby a single consonant is both labialized and palatalized. According to Eshun (1993: 180), the labio-palatalized consonants are produced by simultaneously rounding the lips and raising the tongue towards the palatal region. All these examples show that (coronal) palatalization can be triggered by a back vocoid whereas no dorsal palatalization triggered by a high back vocoid is reported. This parallels Chaha /U/, which triggers palatalization of coronals but not velars. 7.4.4 Raising in the impersonal subject and its absence in the 3SG MASC object The impersonal subject and the 3  object diﬀer in triggering the raising of a root-ﬁnal radical /A/ to [6]. The impersonal subject /-U/ of (30a) triggers raising of the /A/ to [6] whereas the 3  object /-6U/ of (30b) does not trigger such raising. (30)

Raising diﬀerence in the impersonal subject and 3  object a. /UGgA-U-r-a/ → [wGgw6ra] ‘Let one pound  for her!’ ‘Let you ( ) pound b. /UGgA-Ø-r-6U/ → [wGgwar6] verb + subject + benefactive + object  for him!’

My proposal is that /U/ of the 3  object suﬃx /-6U/ behaves like the /U/ of the impersonal and that, given the appropriate context, it should trigger raising of /A/ to [6]. In my view, /A/ raises to [6] in (30a) because it is left adjacent to /-U/. But /A/ and /U/ are separated by /-r/ in (30b), which explains the absence of raising. Given that [g] is labialized in both (30a) and (30b), raising or its absence cannot be attributed to labialization but to the underlying position of /U/

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

213

in the word. The absence of raising in (30b) also poses a problem for a shortening analysis of /A/ → [6]. As we will see next, the raising and its absence in (30) parallel palatalization of stem-ﬁnal coronal in the impersonal and absence of palatalization in the 3  object. 7.4.5 Labialization without palatalization: the 3SG MASC object The 3  object suﬃx in (31) labializes the nearest preceding labial or velar but does not trigger palatalization. (31)

The a. b. c.

3  object labialization /6-t’6öt’-ö-6U/ → 6t’6öt’Gw6 /6-t’6öt’-r-6U/ → 6t’6wt’Gr6 /6-t’6öt’-n-U/ → 6t’6wt’Gn subject + verb + case + object

‘I hold it to his detriment.’14 ‘I open it for him.’ ‘I open it.’

Again, my claim is that the /U/ of 3  object suﬃx behaves like any other /U/ and, given the appropriate context, it should trigger both labialization and palatalization. However, the stem-ﬁnal /t’/ and /U/ of (31a) are separated by the unpalatalizable consonant /ö/ whereas Coronal Palatalization in (5a) requires adjacency between the target and a trigger. This explains why /t’/ does not palatalize. In addition, the intervening consonants /r/ and /n/ of (31b, c) are not coronal obstruents so they are not targeted by U-triggered palatalization. The absence of palatalization is due to the lack of the appropriate context (i.e. a coronal obstruent left adjacent to /U/). So, the fact that the 3  object labialization (in contrast to the impersonal, cf. (25)) does not entail palatalization receives a satisfactory explanation. My analysis that the 3  object labialization fails to entail palatalization only because of the lack of appropriate context is supported by attested parallel forms of Muher to be discussed next. 7.4.6 The 3SG MASC object suﬃx in Muher Consider the Muher forms in (32), which are parallel to (31c) of Chaha. Leaving other processes apart, the stem-ﬁnal coronal obstruent of (32a) is palatalized, labial and velar of (32b) are labialized and r of (32c) is unaﬀected, as noted in Rose (1996: 213). So, the 3  object suﬃx triggers labialization and palatalization but not both at once (data from Rose 1996: 213).

14. When the case suﬃx -ö6 is used with the 3  object, as in (31a), it can also be instrumental, i.e. 6t’6öt’Gw6 ‘I hold with it.’

214

SOUND MUTATIONS

(32)

Labialization and palatalization triggered by the 3  object Imperfective Imperative a. tG-k6fGcc-t kGfGcc ‘(you) open it’ b. tG-n6fGk’k’w-t nGfGk’k’w ‘(you) break it oﬀ’ tG-k6tGﬀ w-t kGtGﬀ w ‘(you) chop it’ c. tG-m6t’t’Gr-t m6t’t’Gr ‘(you) choose it’

My position is that the 3  accusative object suﬃx of Muher is /-U/, identical to its equivalent of Chaha. In addition, as I have argued so far, /U/ palatalizes only coronal obstruents. These are palatalized only if they are left adjacent to a trigger, as stated in Coronal Palatalization (5a). Given that the stem-ﬁnal /t/ and /-U/ in (32a) are not separated by a consonant (-t of the Imperfective follows /-U/) the structural description of Coronal Palatalization is satisﬁed and it takes place accordingly. The 3  object suﬃx of Muher is therefore one more argument in favor of the claim that /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalization. But it diﬀers from Chaha in that both cannot occur at once. This may be because the Place node of a Muher /U/ dissociates as a whole (instead of its individual features) and docks on its target (either labializing it or palatalizing it). 7.4.7 Masculine plural subject suﬃx in Inor Inor masculine plural subject suﬃx triggers labialization and palatalization, (33). (Again, this generalization about Inor also holds for Endegenˇ, see Leslau 1992: 468.) (33)

Inor Plural suﬃx (data from Berhanu Chamora, personal communication) Imperative Imperative ( ) ( ) a. bGtGx b(w)Gtxw-ua ‘Uproot!’ b. gGms g(w)Gmww-ua ‘Break in big chunks!’ c. gGr6z gwGroŠ-ua ‘Age!’ d. ŠaöGr Šawr-ua ‘Return!’ e. nGz6z nGŠ6Š-ua ‘Dream!’

My analysis about Chaha was that it is the dissociated features of /U/ which, by becoming autonomous, trigger labialization and palatalization. But what we see above is that the intact plural suﬃx -ua can also trigger these processes. My account is as follows. The masculine plural suﬃx is /-U:a/. The only diﬀerence here is that the features of /U/ are not dissociated from their articulators, i.e. they are not ﬂoating, as shown below. This diﬀerence is due to the

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

215

fact that Inor has a long vs. short vowel contrast. A totally ﬂoating /U/ (such as the one in the Inor impersonal and Inﬁnitive) is short. However, a /U/ which triggers labialization and palatalization while it is in situ (such as the one in (34)) is long. In the latter case, the triggers of labialization ([round]) and palatalization ([high]) are dominated by (or not dissociated from) their respective independent articulators Labial and Dorsal. Yet, the features spread to their respective targets. In addition, because recursiveness is a well-known property of Inor labialization (see Hetzron and Marcos 1966: 26), the spreading of [round] optionally continues to preceding targets till it is blocked by an opaque segment. See Zoll (1996) for an analysis of Inor labialization and palatalization as distinct morphemes, namely masculine and plural, respectively. (34)

Inor Plural suﬃx as spreading g G m s +

Ua Place

( )

Dorsal Labial

[high] [round] g(w)Gmww-ua ‘Break up in big chunks’ Here, labialization and palatalization are clearly triggered by the suﬃx. Accordingly, my analysis predicts that the rightmost labial or velar should be labialized and a ﬁnal coronal obstruent should be palatalized. As the examples in (33) show, this prediction is borne out. Assuming that nGŠ6Š-ua is derived from –nz, no root-internal coronal obstruent is palatalized and no labial or velar is labialized in the presence of a following labial or velar. The claim that /U/ triggers labialization and palatalization of preceding consonants predicts that preﬁxal /U/ should trigger neither labialization nor palatalization of a stem consonant. We will see in the following section that this prediction is conﬁrmed.

216 7.5

SOUND MUTATIONS

Word-initial /U/

7.5.1 Derivational preﬁxes involving /U/ A number of Chaha preﬁxes begin with /U/. The ﬁrst among them is the inﬁnitive preﬁx w6-, e.g. w6-kGft ‘to open’, which attaches to every verb-forming root. This preﬁx does not ﬂoat and it triggers neither labialization nor palatalization. My assumption is that the decomposition of /U/ proposed in (2) does not apply in word-initial position. Accordingly, the features [round] and [high] remain linked to their articulators and they surface as [w]. Some instrumental nouns, with which one performs the action denoted by the verb, begin with the preﬁx /U/. These nouns and their corresponding inﬁnitives are listed in (35). (There are other nouns which, for instance, begin with m6- as in m6-sk6k ‘peg’, from –sk, and m-at-raw-y6 ‘stretcher for carrying dung’, from –rsA, but they will not be discussed here.) (35) a.

b. c. d.

Inﬁnitive

Instrumental noun

w6-fGrt w6-gaj w6-g6p(G)t w6-sGrt w6-dGrg w6-t’Grk’ w-a-nt’Gr w6-ftGr w6-sif w6-Xfa

w6-f6^c-a w6-g6^j-a w6-g6p6c-a w6-sr6c-a w6-dr6gy-a w6-t’r6k’y-a w-a-nt’Gy-6 w6-ft6y-a w6-sif-6 w6-raf w-6

‘entrance (dividing the house in two)’ ‘bamboo spatula for stirring’ ‘horse-racing ﬁeld’ ‘pebble used to decorate bowls’ ‘hammer’ ‘bowl in which one dips for water’ ‘bowl in which one puriﬁes butter’ ‘spindle’ ‘awl’ ‘bellows’

In the instrumental nouns of (35) the preﬁx is accompanied by stem-ﬁnal palatalization. Coronal obstruents in (35a), velars in (35b) and r in (35c) are palatalized. The last two properties do not characterize U-triggered palatalization. I assume that these nouns have an instrumental suﬃx /-Ia/ (seen in Amharic words such as m6-sö6r-ya ‘by which one breaks’) and that the /I/ triggers palatalization. In addition, these nouns use the inﬁnitive as their base, i.e. they include the inﬁnitival /U6-/ and the instrumental /-Ia/. There also are diﬀerent nouns with the preﬁx w6- but without the instrumental /-Ia/, as shown below. (36)

Inﬁnitive w6-fc’ w-aö

Noun w6-fc’-6 w-aö-i(-n6t)

‘lower millstone’ ‘someone generous (generosity)’

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

w6-t’Gmd w6-öda w6-r7 w6-nt’Gö w6-z6kGö

w6-t’m6d w6-öaj6 w6-re-t w6-rt’6ö w6-zg6ö

217

‘trap’ ‘discussion’ ‘sleep’ ‘irrigation channel’ ‘door’

The word-initial /U/ of the nouns listed in (35) and (36) does not ﬂoat. A rootinitial /U/ shows the same behavior, as we will now see. 7.5.2 Root-initial /U/ A root-initial /U/ does not ﬂoat, and triggers neither labialization nor palatalization.15 The Jussive and Imperfective of the U-initial verbs of (37) (also the Imperfective of (38)) show that /U/ is preserved if it is an onset. (See §5.4.3 concerning occlusivization of /U/ to [bw].) (37)

Jussive y6-war y6-was y6-wat’ y6-w7 y6-w6r

Imperfective yG-w6r yG-w6s yG-w6t’ yG-we y-ar < /yG-w6r/

‘spend the day’ ‘lend an object’ ‘swallow’ ‘go down’ ‘go’

The onset /U/ is exceptionally deleted in the Imperfective y-ar, not *yG-w6r, and its deletion is compensated by changing 6 to a. This deletion suggests that /U/ is a medial radical, the initial radical beng *x as seen in xw6r (Inor) and xor (Geäez). The verbs in (38a) are intransitives, which have a C1C26C3 Jussive stem, whereas those in (38b) are transitives, which have a C1C2GC3 Jussive stem. As a coda, a C1 /U/ of a C1C26C3 Jussive deletes, (38a), while that of a C1C2GC3 Jussive remains, (38b). A coda /U/ also remains in reduplicated verbs, cf. the Frequentative Perfective of (38) (available only for certain forms). (38) a.

Jussive y6-r6d < /y6-wr6d/ y6-t’a < /y6-wt’6A/ y6-t’6k’ < /y6-wt’6k’/

Imperfective Frequentative Perfective yG-w6rd a-wrand ‘descend’ yG-w6t’a a-wt’at’a ‘ascend’ yG-w6t’(G)k’ ‘fall’

15. In two historically U-initial verbs, cona ‘has sat down’ (from *t-UrA, as found in wGr6 ‘sitting’) and cot ‘has worked’ (from *t-UAt, as found in wat ‘plowing’), the reﬂexive t- has been reanalyzed as a ﬁrst radical and it is palatalized due to /U/. This historical palatalization before [o] is not active presently as we will see in §7.6.2. See Polotsky (1938: 158) and Leslau (1979: vol. III) for arguments that these verbs are historically U-initial. Palatalization in these verbs also supports the position that /U/ causes palatalization.

218

SOUND MUTATIONS b.

c.

y6-wk’Gr y6-wk’Gs y6-wt’Gr y6-wtGr y6-ga < /y6-wgGA/ y6-sd < /y6-wsd/

yG-w6k’Gr yG-w6k’Gs yG-w6t’Gr yG-w6tGr yG-w6ga yG-w6sd

a-wk’ak’6r t6-wt’6t’6r t6-wt6t6r t6-wgaka

‘agitate’ ‘blame’ ‘invent’ ‘draw tight’ ‘pierce’ ‘take’

As an exception, the /U/ of a C1C2GC3 Jussive is deleted in (38c). See Berhane (1991: 37–45) and Raz (1983: 61) for comparable deletions in Tigrinya and Tigre respectively. The absence of compensatory lengthening, e.g. [y6-ga] (cf. *[y6gga] and *[y6ka]), may be due to a prohibition against the spreading of a root-medial consonant to a stem-initial C slot. On the other hand, if we add the preﬁxes a-t‘negation-2’ to wGga ‘pierce!’ we obtain [a.tG.ga] ‘do not pierce!’, not *[at.ga]. This shows that t and g are not adjacent, as two adjacent intervocalic consonants (VCCV) cannot be separated by [G]. Moreover, I showed in §1.3 that a preﬁx t undergoes assimilation with stem-initial coronal stops, e.g. /yG-t-t’6k’6r/ → [yGt’t’6k’6r] ‘he hides himself’ whereas such assimilation cannot occur in [a-tGga] because [G] separates the two consonants. The deleted /U/ triggers no labialization, as k’ in y6-t’6k’ and g in y6-ga, from (38), are not labialized. In addition, the surface [w] in (38) shows that rootinitial /U/ does not ﬂoat. This, in my view, means that Decomposition of /U/, (2), does not apply in this context. In other words, the features of a root-initial /U/ (whether it is deleted or not) are not autonomous. Deletion (which I view as the delinking of the Root node of /U/) then is diﬀerent from Decomposition of /U/. This explains why a deleted /U/ does not ﬂoat and why it triggers neither labialization nor palatalization. 7.5.3 Nonﬂoating /U/ in [ w6t] To the best of my knowledge, [−w6t] is one of the only two suﬃxes (the other one being -u ‘is’) in which a nonﬂoating /U/ is found in Chaha. (Note that [w] in words like k’yGnaw-6 ‘proximity’, is a labialized /ö/, cf. the root –k’Irö ‘near’. See §7.8 for the [u] in k6f6txum ‘you ( ) have opened .) This suﬃx has multiple functions. Combined with adjectives, it forms a feminine superlative, (39a), with a common noun it forms a more speciﬁc common noun, (39b), and with a bound stem it forms a proper noun, (39c). It also forms an agent for some professions and is similar to the English -smith, -er or -ist, (39d).

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

(39)

219

Forms with the suﬃx [−w6t] a.

b. c. d.

ac’Gr ‘short’ ac’Gr-w6t ‘the shortest ()’ fat’ura ‘tall’ fat’ur-w6t ‘the tallest ()’ g6mb6na ‘dark’ g6mb6n-w6t ‘the darkest ()’ m6rkama ‘beautiful’ m6rkam-w6t ‘the most beautiful ()’ n6c’6 ‘white’ n6c’-w6t ‘the whitest ()’ t’Grar ‘shadow’ t’Grar-w6t ‘shadow image’ mGsGr ‘look’ m6sre-w6t ‘mirror’ Proper names (f): aöwG-w6t, antG-w6t, d6n-w6t, sarçG-w6t, zGm-w6t, etc. Gnj6ra ‘type of bread’ y-Gnj6r-w6t ‘who bakes Gnj6ra for a living’ w6xra ‘clay’ y6-w6xGr-w6t ‘potter’ t’Gt’a ‘cotton’ y6-t’Gt’-w6t ‘who spins for a living’

-w6t can be listed as an exception to ﬂoating. It can also be treated as a stem, in which case the words in (39) will be compounds. If we adopt the second option, that /U/ does not ﬂoat will follow from it being stem-initial. Note that w6t ‘kind of ant, minor clan of shallow genealogical depth’ exists also as an independent word. The generalization about word- and stem-initial position is that Decomposition of /U/ does not apply, so [round] and [high] of /U/ do not ﬂoat. This may also be because ﬂoating is only leftward. We will discuss the behavior of noninitial radical /U/ in the following section.

7.6

Roots involving non-initial /U/

7.6.1 Verbs beginning with a round vowel A few verbs, listed in (40), begin with a round back vowel. I assume that /U/ in (40a) is not initial since initial /U/ surfaces as [w], e.g. w6t’a ‘has gone out’. In these verbs, /U/ targets a vowel. Note that an aﬃx /U/ does not target vowels, as shown by the impersonal n6t’6r, not *not’or, where /U/ does not surface because no radical can support it. However, in cases where there is no preceding labial or velar consonant, a radical /U/ targets an adjacent vowel, as in (40). The targeted vowel is part of the stem in (40a) while it is a preﬁx in (40b). (40)

Vowel rounding triggered by a radical /U/ Perfective Imperfective Jussive a. od y-ud y-od ‘tell’ on6 y-on y-on ‘cry’ ow6 yG-w6w y-ow ‘deﬁle’

220

SOUND MUTATIONS

b.

fd or a-w6d y-a-w6d fna or a-(w6)na y-a-(w6)ra ft’a or a-(w6)t’a y-a-(w6)t’a

y-fd ‘be in need’ y-fra ‘put  somewhere’ y-ft’a ‘take out, sing’

The parenthesized w6 in (40b) can optionally be deleted and, in that case, there will not be rounding, i.e. fna, a-w6na and a-na are in free variation. 7.6.2 Medial /U/ between two consonants A root-medial /U/ ﬂoats and labializes a preceding labial or velar consonant, as in (41a).16 In cases where C1 is a coronal, as in (41b), /U/ does not labialize a following labial or velar consonant but it is realized as a vowel [o].17 But /U/ is realized as [f] in (41c) due to an inﬁxal [a] (introduced with the preﬁx t6-, to express a habitual action). (41)

U-medial triradicals Perfective yG-f w6x a. f w6x w m 6t yG-mot k’w6m yG-k’w6m b. a-sor y-a-sor dok’ yG-dok’ not’ yG-rot’ t’om yG-t’om t6-tos yG-t-tos c. t6-dff yG-d-dff

ImperfectiveJussive y6-f wGx ‘wipe’ y6-mwGt ‘die’ y6-k’wGm ‘stand up’ y-a-sor ‘digest well ()’ y6-dok’ ‘be confused’ y6-rot’ ‘run’ y6-t’om ‘fast’ y6-t-tos ‘be in a mess’ y6-d-dff ‘be improper’

In (41), /U/ is realized even in the absence of a labializable radical, so in this respect it diﬀers from a suﬃxal /U/. However, like a suﬃxal /U/, it does not aﬀect a labial or velar to its right. Representative examples of (41a, b) can be depicted as follows.

16. The stem mot, found in the Imperfective of (41a) and the noun mot ‘death’, is an exception to this generalization. 17. The diﬀerent aspectual vowels (6-6 of Perfective, 6-G of Imperfective and G-6 of intransitive Jussive) do not change the quality of the vowel. However, instead of the attested Jussive y-a-sor, from (41b), we expect *y-a-sur because it is a transitive verb, cf. /I-a-sGUGr/.

221

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

(42)

a.

k’

6

U6m

b.

t

6

U6s

Place

Place

Dorsal Labial = = [high] [round] k’w6m ‘has stood up’

Dorsal Labial = = [high] [round] tos ‘has been in mess’

The dissociated [round] of /U/ in (42a) targets the preceding radical /k’/ while [high] remains aﬂoat because it has no preceding target to palatalize. On the other hand, [round] in (42b) is not preceded by a labial or velar consonant so either it should remain aﬂoat (which is the case for a [round] coming from a suﬃx) or dock on the vowel. Because a medial glide is allowed to fuse with a vowel the [round] of /U/ docks on the vowel /6/ and changes it to [o]. The [high] of /U/ in (42b) could have palatalized /t/, yielding the unattested *cos, parallel to the historical palatalization in cot (cf. footnote 14), but it does not. This is problematic to my claim that /U/ palatalizes a left-adjacent coronal obstruent. It may be that [round] must linearly precede [high]. See Elmedlaoui (1992: 385) for a view that w linearly precedes y. 7.6.3 Medial /U/ in I-second quadriradicals A list of some U-medial triradical verbs in diﬀerent Ethiopian Semitic languages (from Leslau 1979: vol. III) is given below in the ﬁrst column. Their Chaha cognates are given in the second column. It can be seen that only in the second column are initial coronal obstruents palatalized. (43)

U-second triradicals vs. I-second Other Ethiopian Chaha Semitic languages d6w6s (Selt’i) jos s’or (Tigrinya) c’or t6-s’aw6t (Tigrinya) t6-c’fd z6w6r (Selt’i) Šor

quadriradicals

‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has

bashed’ carried, been sick’ conversed’ gone around, wandered’

An important observation to be made here is that the verbs in the ﬁrst column do not include a radical /I/, but a medial /U/. However, their Chaha cognates have palatalization. These Chaha verbs, in contrast to the verbs of (41b, c) and their

222

SOUND MUTATIONS

analysis in (42b), suggest that a medial /U/ palatalizes an initial coronal obstruent. However, my analysis is that labialization and palatalization in these verbs are not triggered by the same phoneme /U/. Rather, they contain both /I/ and /U/, i.e. jos derives from –dIUs, as shown below. (44)

d

I

6

U6s

Place

Place

Dorsal = [–back]

Labial = [round]

Dorsal = [high]

jos ‘has bashed’ [−back] of the second radical /I/ targets the preceding /d/ and palatalizes it to [j] while [round] of the third radical /U/ targets the preceding /6/ and rounds it to [o]. In addition to having to treat these verbs as exceptions with respect to palatalization of the initial radical, an analysis which assumes that jos is a triradical –dUs cannot account for the fact that the verb conjugates like a quadriradical. Its C1 is depalatalized and followed by /6/ in the Jussive, /d6IUs/ → /d6Us/ → [dos] ‘bash!’ Had palatalization in [jos], (44), been due to /U/ there would have been no explanation for depalatalization in the Jussive [dos]. 7.6.4 Final /U/ and a penultimate coronal obstruent In all instances, a root-ﬁnal /U/ triggers labialization of the rightmost labial or velar and palatalization of a penultimate coronal obstruent. This is shown by the triradicals of (45a) and quadriradicals of (45b). (45)

Final U-triggered labialization and palatalization Root Perfective Imperfective a.

b.

–fsU –k’zU –ksU –öAtU –fAt’U –grt’U

f w6w6 k’w6Š6 a-kw6w6 a-m-bwac6 f wac’6 a-]-gwGrac’6

yG-f w6w yG-k’w6Š y-a-kw6w y-a-m-bwac yG-f wac’ y-a-]-gwGrac’

y6-f w(G)w y6-k’w(G)Š y-a-kw(G)w y-a-m-bwac y6-f wac’ y-a-]-gwGrac’

Jussive ‘fart’ ‘has dysentery’ ‘remove ﬁbers’ ‘start to walk’ ‘mow’ ‘nibble ﬂesh’

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ –k’rt’U –mAsU –rösU18

k’wGr6c’6 mwaw6 nGw6w6

yG-k’wr6c’ yG-mwaw yG-rw6w

y6-k’w6^c’ y6-mwaw y6-row

223

‘take a handful’ ‘wipe, rub’ ‘get used to’

In the same way that aﬃx-triggered labialization entails palatalization, radicaltriggered labialization, as in f w6w6 ‘has farted’, entails palatalization. According to my proposal, the [round] of the ﬁnal radical /U/ labializes the rightmost labial or velar while its [high] palatalizes the left-adjacent coronal. Thus, f w6w6 will have the following representation. (46)

Labialization and palatalization triggered by a ﬁnal-radical /U/ f 6 s 6 U

Place

f w6w6 ‘has farted’

Labial = [round]

Dorsal = [high]

As is always the case, [round] labializes the nearest preceding labializable consonant (/f/) and [high] palatalizes the left-adjacent coronal obstruent (/s/). Note that the absence of [6] in the Jussives of (45) shows that they are not quadriradicals of the type –CUCI. The Tigrinya cognate of f w6w6 is f6s6w (see Berhane 1991: 158). That the two consonants in Tigrinya have no secondary articulation indicates that labialization and palatalization in Chaha are both triggered by the ﬁnal /U/. This supports my proposal. The 6-6 sequence of f w6w6 is parallel to that of k6f6t ‘has opened’, so the second 6 in both f w6w6 and k6f6t precedes the ﬁnal radical. In addition, if a C of a C16C26 pattern is labialized the trigger (/U/) is the ﬁnal radical (C3), so f w6w6 in (45a) would be C16C26U3 and k’wGr6c’6 in (45b) would be C1C26C36U4. Based on this, a number of predictions can be made with respect to the C1C26C36U4 (and C16C26U3, mutatis mutandis) pattern. (a) Only C3 (and only if it is a coronal obstruent) can be palatalized (note that vowels are not targeted by [high]). (b) If C3 is labialized, C1 and C2 may be labializable (as in t’Gr6k’w6 and a hypothetical

18. nGw6w6 can also be derived from –rUsI, in which /I/ palatalizes /s/ and /U/ remains in situ because it cannot ﬁnd a host. I know of no criterion to judge which is the best analysis.

224

SOUND MUTATIONS

fGr6k’w6). (c) If C2 is labialized, C3 is not labializable but C1 may be labializable (as in fGk’w6n6 and sGxw6n6), and (d) if C1 is labialized, no other consonant is labializable (as in k’wGr6c’6). Most of these predictions are borne out, but we will see in §7.6.6 that r3 is palatalized due to U4. Before this I show how my analysis allows us to derive a subclass of the vocoids called ‘weak’ in Prunet and Petros (1996: 329). 7.6.5 Deriving a subclass of the ‘weak’ glides The verbs which I analyze as U-ﬁnal triradicals, e.g. f w6w6 ‘has farted’, undergo both labialization and palatalization. An analysis which assumes that labialization and palatalization are triggered respectively by the radicals /U/ and /I/ is forced to assume that f w6w6 has four radicals –fUsI even though it conjugates like a triradical. On the other hand, Prunet and Petros (1996) claim that there are only two types of verbal stem templates in Chaha, a short one containing three C slots (Root nodes) and a long one containing four C slots (excluding gemination) and that a verb employs either one or the other — not both. Analyzing a verb such as f w6w6 as –fUsI is problematic for this claim, and, in order to solve this paradox, Prunet and Petros (1996: 329) propose that one of the vocoids is ‘weak’, a radical without a Root node. (47)

Weak vs. strong /U/ a. Weak /U/

U

b.

Strong /U/

X | Root node | U

In the present proposal the weak glide in a verb such as f w6w6 derives from the independently motivated claim that /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalization. My claim is that the weak /U/ is the feature [round], without the feature [high], of strong /U/, i.e. the two ﬂoating features of f w6w6 in (46) originate from a single Root node and that explains why the verb conjugates like a triradical with only three Root nodes. See Prunet and Petros (1996: 320ﬀ.) for arguments against analyzing consonants with a secondary articulation, such as the ones in f w6w6, as underlying. However, I shall note that the need for weak /U/ cannot be dispensed with entirely, given the four consonants and a vocoid in verbs such as k’wGr6t’6s ‘has pinched’. See Prunet and Petros (1996) for a fairly exhaustive list of such verbs.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

225

7.6.6 Final /U/ preceded by a penultimate /r/ In the discussion so far, it has been argued that /r/ is not targeted by U-triggered palatalization. However, the verbs in (48) begin with a complex consonant, which in my analysis is a sequence of two phonemes. The Perfective n indicates that they have a penultimate /r/, and Imperfective e and Jussive i indicate that they contain a ﬁnal radical /I/. These properties suggest, at ﬁrst glance, that they are quadriradicals. (48)

Root –frU –frU –k’rU

Perfective a-f w6n6 f w6n6 k’w6n6

Imperfective y-a-f we yG-f we yG-k’we

Jussive y-a-f wi y6-f wi y6-k’wi

‘rest’ ‘yield’ ‘roast (e.g. beans)’

On the other hand, quadriradicals have penult gemination in the Imperfective, e.g. yG-gr6tGm (not *yG-gr6dGm) ‘he breaks in two’ whereas /r/ is not geminated in the Imperfective of (48). So, if this verb were a quadriradical the Imperfective yG-f we would be *yG-f w6n. In addition, quadriradicals in the Jussive have a vowel 6 after C1, e.g. y6-g6rdGm (not *y6-gGrdGm) ‘let him break in two!’ while these verbs do not. Both properties actually indicate that the verbs in (48) are triradicals. In addition, C2 of quadriradicals is never geminated whereas /r/ in (48) is geminated in the Perfective showing that they are triradicals and not quadriradicals of the form –C1UrI. We must therefore ﬁnd a way to resolve the paradox in (48) that these verbs have characteristics of both triradicals and quadriradicals. This is readily explained in my analysis if we assume that labialization and palatalization (e, i) in (48) are triggered by a ﬁnal radical /U/, parallel to what we saw in f w6w6, (46). The verbs of (49) have all the above mentioned properties of quadriradicals. In addition, they have a C1C2 cluster in the Imperfective stem, as in yG-gr6tGm ‘he breaks in two’, and the epenthetic vowel G after C1 in the Perfective, as in gGr6t6m ‘has broken in two’, showing that they are quadriradicals even though they do not have four surface consonants. (49)

Root

a.

–fk’rU –sxrU

–t’örU –zörU

b.

–dörU –özrU

–mArU

Perfective Imperfective fGk’w6n6 sGxw6n6 t’Gw6n6 zGw6n6 a-dwan6 a-wzan6 mwan6

yG-fk’w6n yG-sxw6n yG-t’w6n yG-zw6n y-a-dwan y-a-wzan yG-mwan

Jussive y6-fk’we y6-sxwe y6-t’we y6-zwe y-a-dw7 y-a-wz7 y6-mw7

‘whistle’ ‘be thorny, act mad’ ‘depress’ ‘envy’ ‘confuse’ ‘prepare food for gods’ ‘be unsatisﬁed’

226

SOUND MUTATIONS c.

–frU

–k’rU –örU

a-f wran6 a-k’wran6 a-wran6

y-a-f wran y-a-k’wran y-a-wran

y-a-f wr7 ‘soften a cow’s teats’ y-a-k’wr7 ‘fry’ y-a-wr7 ‘miss, be unsure’

I suggest that the verbs in (48) and (49c) are triradicals whereas those in (49a, b) are quadriradicals. All end with the radical /U/. Thus, the underlying form of (48) k’w6n6 ‘has roasted (e.g. beans)’ is /k’6rr6U/ and that of (49a) t’Gw6n6 ‘has depressed’ is /t’ö6rr6U/.19 The features of the ﬁnal /U/ dissociate according to (2) and they labialize the nearest preceding labial or velar and palatalize the penultimate /r/. See also Petros (1996b: 170–1) for a similar proposal. In addition, /r/ is geminated and palatalized in the Perfective, but Chaha has no phonetic \ except before palatalized velars, so palatalization of geminate /r/ is invisible on the surface. But /r/ is simplex in the Jussive. Palatalizing the simplex /r/ results in y, and when the y is not preceded by a vowel, as in (48), it becomes i. Because it is preceded by 6 in (49a) the two sounds fuse, resulting in e. When it is preceded by a, as in (49b), it becomes 7. Notice, however, that this is the ﬁrst time in this chapter that we see /r/ being targeted by U-triggered palatalization. Thus, we can state that only a ﬁnal radical /U/ triggers palatalization of /r/ (given that /r/ is left adjacent to /U/ at the level of radicals).20 Note that the observations and analyses given for the verbs in (48) and (49) also hold for the ones in (45). The claim that /U/ is both [round] and [high], which can be separated as in (2), explains two important problems in Chaha phonology. First, it gives a straightforward account of why labialization entails palatalization. Second, it resolves the paradox that verbs listed in (45), (48) and (49) behave as if they were formed from both triradicals and quadriradicals. 7.6.7 Final /U/ preceded by nonlabializable consonants My analysis predicts that in a word such as f6c’6 ‘has ground’ palatalization can be triggered only by /I/ because a ﬁnal /U/ would also have labialized /f/. On the other hand, in cases where there are no labializable consonants, U-triggered palatalization does not entail labialization, e.g. /t’as-U-öö-a-m/ → [t’awpam] 19. Again, note that the Tigrinya cognate for k’w6n6 is k’6l6w (see Berhane 1991: 157) whereas its Amharic cognate is k’olla. 20. An anonymous reviewer has suggested that these verbs be better analyzed as I-ﬁnal where the U will be weak glide preceding the r, in which case the generalization that U palatalizes only coronal obstruents will be maintained in its generality. But this will lead us to deny the existence of U-ﬁnal verbs with a penultimate r. Besides, Tigrinya cognates such as k’6l6w suggest that these verbs are U-ﬁnal.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

227

(infringe-impersonal-malfactive-her-past) ‘one has infringed (on it) to her detriment’. Accordingly, palatalization in a word such as s6c’6 ‘has drunk’ can be triggered either by a ﬁnal /U/ or /I/, and the [round] of /U/ may remain aﬂoat due to a lack of target. Now, compare the two columns below. (50)

U-ﬁnal vs. I-ﬁnal triradicals a.

‘6s’6w (Geäez)

b.

t6w6 (Amharic) n6s’6y (Geäez) s6t6y (Geäez)

ac’6 (Chaha) t6-c’6w6 (Chaha) c6 (Chaha) n6c’6 (Chaha) s6c’6 (Chaha)

‘has closed’ ‘has convalesced by special food’ ‘abandon, leave’ ‘has plucked out’ ‘has drunk’

The Geäez and Amharic forms show that the verbs in (50a) are U-ﬁnal while those in (50b) are I-ﬁnal. The U-ﬁnal verbs of (50a) display palatalization in Chaha showing that /U/ palatalizes the immediately preceding /t’/ and /t/. But [round] of /U/ has no target to labialize, so it remains aﬂoat in the verbs whereas it surfaces as [w] in the noun c’Gww-6r ‘food for convalescing’. Even when it is realized as [w] it triggers palatalization of the preceding /s/ in c’Gww-6r. In addition, the proposed /U/ of c6-m appears by rounding a to f in the objectless 2  Imperative tf ‘do not do STH, let it be!’ (cf. 2  Imperative taö-6ma.) 7.7

U-triggered palatalization in Tigrinya

Tigrinya, along with Tigre and Geäez, is a North Ethiopian Semitic language whereas Chaha is one of the South Ethiopian Semitic languages. The two groups share many properties showing that they have a common origin, as noted in Hetzron (1972a: 17ﬀ.). Now we will see that my proposal is supported by facts from Tigrinya. 7.7.1 U-medial verbs While discussing U-medial triradical verbs (type A), Berhane (1991: 46) observes: First, if the second radical is w, there is a 50% chance that the third one is y. Second, if the second radical is w, there is a 30% chance that the ﬁrst one is a guttural (9, H) or a glottal (?, h), and close to a 70% chance that the ﬁrst one is an anterior coronal (there are no initial labials and velars followed by w). Finally, roots with glides as both second and third radicals only include w followed by y: y is never followed by w.

228

SOUND MUTATIONS

These generalizations, which by themselves look puzzling, follow from my analysis with minor assumptions. Berhane’s ﬁrst generalization (that 50% of w-medial type A verbs are y-ﬁnal) follows if we assume that they are biradicals (–C1U2) paired with the short template (CVCVC) and that w and y derive from the Decomposition of /U/ (dissociation applying only to [high]), as shown below for t6w6y ‘has turned’. (51)

C

V

C

V

t

6

U

6

C

Place

Labial

Dorsal = [high]

[round] t6w6y ‘has turned’ [round] remains linked but the dissociated [high] ﬁlls the empty C slot. His third generalization (if C2 and C3 are glides, w precedes y) as well follows from (51). (Note that in Gurage a labialized consonant always precedes a palatalized consonant when the two processes have a common trigger). In addition, (51) predicts that –C1U2 should not yield a verb such as C16w6w (to be contrasted with C1C2C2, e.g. k’6f6f ‘has clipped’, where C2 is a consonant), and this prediction is borne out according to Berhane’s (1991) exhaustive list of verbs containing glides in Tigrinya. His second generalization (that there are no initial labials or velars followed by w) follows if we assume that [round] docks on a preceding labial or velar (m6w6t → mw6t) and that results in its vocalization (mw6t → mot). This also explains why from 45 w-ﬁnal verbs listed in Berhane (1991) no verb has a labialized consonant. On the other hand, from 93 y-ﬁnal verbs in the same list 16 of them have a labialized consonant. What this shows is that the source of the ﬁnal y and labialization in the 16 verbs is a ﬁnal /U/, i.e. a verb such as gw6s6y6 ‘looked after’ derives from /g6s6U6/. This also supports the proposed Decomposition of /U/.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

229

7.7.2 U-ﬁnal verbs Leslau (1941: 117) states: “[l]es verbes à w ﬁnal se présentent sous trois formes: 1) à w ﬁnal; 2) à y ﬁnal; 3) bilitères, par suite de la réduction des diphtongues.” According to him, the Imperfective of –ftU ‘love’, may have the following four forms: [yG-f6ttuæ w], [yG-f6ttuæ ], [yG-f6ttGy] or [yG-f6tti] whereas –sty ‘drink’ cannot have *[yG-s6ttuæ w] or *[yG-s6ttuæ ]. In other words, /U/ may lose its feature [round] to yield [Gy, i] but /I/ cannot acquire [round] to yield [uæ (w)]. That /U/ can surface as [uæ (w)] and as [Gy, i] shows that its [round] and [high] may realize independently and supports my proposal.21 Alternations (free variations) in Tigrinya also show that my proposal is correct. Consider the following U-ﬁnal verbs (from Berhane 1991: 49–50). (52)

a.

b.

f6t6w6 Aaﬀ6w6 bar6w6 ’an6w6 law6w6 c’6n6w6

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

f w6t6y6 Aaﬀ w6y6 bwar6y6 ’an6y6 law6y6 c’6n6y6

‘he loved’ ‘he got rashes’ ‘he ploughed’ ‘it is ruined’ ‘it became loose’ ‘it smelled’

In (52a), w remains at the end in the ﬁrst alternant so the preceding labials are not labialized. However, w becomes y in the second alternant and that triggers labialization of the labials. But in (52b), the consonants preceding w are not labializable. So there is no labialization in both alternants. In my view, the [round] of /U/ is what labializes the labials and the [high] of /U/ is what remains at the end and surfaces as y, supporting my claim that [round] and [high] of /U/ can realize independently. 7.7.3 Forms involving labialization and palatalization Voigt (1988: 529ﬀ.) discusses a number of Tigrinya words in which /s/ is palatalized (see also Denais 1990: 280–295). In these words, one or more of the conditions in (53) is met:

21. Ambivalence between w and y is seen also in Tigre, in two exceptional glide-medial verbs. Raz (1983: 62) states: “[t]he verb mota shows distinctive features of a medial w inﬂexion … and … a medial y inﬂexion … The collected examples of s» oma suggest that the radicals w and y occur in free variation in this particular verb.” We may assume that decomposition does not apply in nonalternating verbs.

230

SOUND MUTATIONS

(53)

a. b. c. d.

The word contains [w], as in wGwt’i ‘in’. The word contains a back round vowel, as in daguwa ‘small millet’ and wGkkor ‘sugar’. A velar in the word is labialized, as in w6l6k’w6 ‘be hot’. (But there are a few exceptions, e.g. mGwkin ‘poor’.) There is no labialization if all consonants of the word are labials and coronals, as in wGm ‘name’.22

Voigt (1988: 531) states that in the words exempliﬁed in (53a–d), “labialization appears as a suprasegmental feature” and “has an impact on more than one segment.” The source of labialization (/U/ in my analysis) and how the suprasegmental feature functions may be seen in diﬀerent ways. For instance, in Voigt’s view, (leaving the vocalism aside) a word such as w6l6k’w6, (53c), consists of the three plain radicals slk’ and an autosegment w appearing on each radical, i.e. (slk’)w → sw,lw,k’w → w,l,k’w. My view is that words in which /s/ is palatalized include the vocoid /U/. So, w6l6k’w6 consists of the four radicals sUlk’. The features [round] and [high] of /U/ are autonomous. Its [round] labializes the velar while its [high] palatalizes the /s/. (The targets and directions of ﬂoating for [round] and [high] diﬀer from Chaha). In both views, a single phoneme /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalization, giving further evidence for my claim. In my view, where the vocoid is realized as [w], (53a), or [u], (53b), the features of /U/ are linked with their articulators but the feature [high] spreads to /s/ and palatalizes it to [w]. Accordingly, wGwt’i ‘in’ may be represented as (54a) and daguwa ‘small millet’ as (54b): (54) U-triggered palatalization in Tigrinya as spreading U G s t’ i U s a a. b. d a g

Place

Place

Dorsal

Dorsal

Labial

Labial

[high] [round] wGwt’i ‘in’

[high] [round] daguwa ‘small millet’

22. While the plain vs. round alternation above in (52) aﬀects labials, labials are not rounded in the dialects discussed in Voigt (1988).

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

231

This parallels the spreading from an anchored /U/ of the Inor plural suﬃx to the stem (but in the opposite direction). Because the features are linked with their articulators we have the independent sounds [w] in wGwt’i and [u] in daguwa. In words where the condition (53c) or (53d) is satisﬁed, i.e. w6l6k’w6 ‘be hot’ and wGm ‘name’, the features of /U/ are dissociated from their articulators and ﬂoat toward a host. In this view, labialization and palatalization in w6l6k’w6 behaves the way /U/ does in /t’GööGs-U/ → [t’GbwGw] ‘well roasted’, (Chaha, (3)). These words contain /U/, whose [round] targets velars and whose [high] targets /s/.23 (55)

U-triggered labialization and palatalization in Tigrinya as ﬂoating 6 U l 6 k’ + 6 b. s U m a. s

Place Dorsal Labial = = [high] [round] w6l6k’w6 ‘be hot’

Place

Labial = [round] wGm ‘name’

Dorsal = [high]

Since Tigrinya labials (in the forms discussed by Voigt 1988) are not labializable segments, [round] of /U/ in (55b) has no docking target. So, it remains unpronounced. Absence of a docking target for [round] also explains why we obtain words such as w6ll6l6 ‘sew’. But see Voigt (1988: 530) for a diﬀerent explanation. 7.7.4 The numerals In the Tigrinya numerals listed in (56), we ﬁnd [s] and no round vowel. (Data from Leslau 1941: 127–9, organized by Voigt 1988: 525; my [w, ’, G, 6], correspond to their [š, ‘, 6, ä] respectively. (See also Ullendorﬀ 1955: 134–9). (56)

Tigrinya numerals containing [s] and no round vowel Cardinals Multiples of ten Ordinals24 ’Gsra (20) — — s6lasa, salasa (30) sal(G)say (3rd) s6l6ste» (3) h» amsa (50) h» am(G)say (5th)

23. There are instances where other coronal obstruents also palatalize (see Voigt 1988: 532–4). So the target does not have to be /s/ alone. 24. Voigt (1988: 525) reports that, in some dialects, /s/ can be palatalized even in the ordinals.

232

SOUND MUTATIONS

sGssa, sGlsa (60) s6b’a (70) s6manya (80) t6s’a (90) —

sad(G)say (6th) sab(G)’ay (7th) sam(G)nay (8th) ’as(G)ray (10th)

’ass6rte» (10)

On the other hand, the numerals of (57) include a palatalized [w] and round vowel. (57)

Tigrinya numerals containing [w] and a round vowel h» ammuwte» (5) wuæ dduwte» (6) wob’atte» (7) womm6nte» , wommonte» (8)

What is uncontroversial about the numerals in (57) is that palatalization in them is not triggered by front vowels. Ullendorﬀ (1955: 136) and Voigt (1988: 527) note that it is triggered by back rounded or high central vowels. My view is that only the back round vowels [o, uæ ] are responsible for the palatalization. Note that [o] in these forms is a fusion of /6/ and /U/ while [uæ ] is that of /G/ and /U/. Thus, [o, uæ ] include [round] and [high] of /U/. I have shown throughout this chapter that, in the Gurage languages Chaha, Inor and Muher, the [round] of /U/ labializes while its [high] palatalizes. In my view, the facts of Tigrinya numerals parallel the generalizations observed in Gurage. The [o, uæ ] include /U/, whose [high] palatalizes /s/ to [w]. If we assume, following Ullendorﬀ (1955: 136) and Voigt (1988: 527), that /s/ is also palatalized when it is followed or preceded by the high central vowel [G], the absence of palatalization in the multiples of ten (’Gsra, sGssa and sGlsa) will remain an exception. Voigt (1988: 525) accounts for this by assuming that [w] is “characteristic of the cardinal numbers” and that [s] in the cardinal numbers of (56) is not palatalized because it is not followed by a high vowel. He explains the optional palatalization in the ordinal tawG’ay of (58) by assuming that it is derived from the cardinals. (58)

Tigrinya numerals containing [w] without a round vowel Ordinal Cardinal tas(G)’ay, tawG’ay (9th) tGw’atte» (9)

However, if we assume, as I do, that /s/ is palatalized when the numeral includes /U/, as this clearly happens in a number of other contexts discussed in Voigt (1988) and in the preceding subsections, we will have a uniﬁed account for palatalization. In addition, our explanation will not need to resort to a morphological class of cardinals as well as a high vowel, which is an odd natural class.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

233

That is, palatalization will occur when the phonological context (presence of /U/ in the word) is met. A problem for this analysis is that palatalization in (58) occurs in the absence of /U/. A possible solution to this is to assume that these forms include /U/, as in the South Ethiopian Semitic language Argobba Š6h» wt’6\\ ‘nine’ (see Leslau 1979: vol. III, 717), but its [round] does not surface due to a lack of host. In this section, I have shown that the independently motivated Decomposition of /U/, (2), explains the labialization and palatalization triggered by a unique phoneme /U/ in Tigrinya. While Tigrinya and the other Gurage languages display this shared characteristic the other South Ethiopian Semitic languages such as Amharic do not, as U-triggered labialization and palatalization are not attested in Amharic.

7.8

On floating vs. nonfloating /U/

I have stated that there is no /w/ vs. /u/ contrast in Chaha, i.e. [w] and [u] come from /U/. It is also worth examining whether Chaha distinguishes two — ﬂoating and nonﬂoating — types of /U/ or if the ﬂoating vs. nonﬂoating nature of /U/ is derivable from other aspects of the grammar. For instance, the impersonal subject /-U/, (59a), and the 3  object /-6U/, (59b), ﬂoat visibly. (59)

Floating visibility a. /k6f6t-U-r-a-m/ b. /k6f6t6-Ø-r-6U-m/ c. ? d. ?

→ → → →

[k6f w6cram] [k6f w6t6r6m] [k6f6txwGm] [k6f6txum]

‘One has opened it for her.’ ‘He has opened it for him.’ ‘I have opened .’ ‘You ( ) have opened .’

On the other hand, /U/ in (59c, d) does not seem to be ﬂoating. For instance, while /U/ in (59c) docks on /x/ the one in (59d) does not dock on the second person suﬃx /x/, nor does it reach the stem in the Imperfective, e.g. [tG-k6ft-o] (not *[tG-k6f wt-6]) ‘you ( ) open ’. So the question is whether the /U/ in (59a, b) is diﬀerent from the one in (59c, d). In other words, what is the  of (59c, d)? I propose that the diﬀerence between the visibly ﬂoating /U/ of (59a, b) and the seemingly nonﬂoating /U/ of (59c, d) lies in the fact that the latter is right adjacent to a host. This is shown in the following derivations of the 1 and 2 . (See §1 of the appendix to this chapter for some previous factual errors about these suﬃxes.)

234

SOUND MUTATIONS

(60)

a.

b.

/k6f6t-xU-m/ → [k6f6txwGm] open-1-past ‘I have opened .’ /k6f6t-x6-6öU-m/ → [k6f6txum] open-2- -past ‘You ( ) have opened .’

The /U/ ﬂoats and docks on the immediately preceding host /x/ in (60a), but its movement is local, hence, undetectable. Similarly, the /U/ in (60b) is preceded by /ö/. The /U/ ﬂoats and docks on the immediately preceding /ö/. However, the movement is local and a labialized /ö/ vocalizes (öw → u, this happens systematically in Chaha), thereby making the ﬂoating obscure. Note that there is no vocalization in related languages such as Muher where the masculine plural suﬃx is /-mU/, e.g. [s6bb6rxGmwGm] (from Leslau 1992: 196). The m is present also in many related languages, cf. e.g. Hetzron (1968: 158) for Gogot and Leslau (1956: 101) for Gafat, etc. That the masculine plural suﬃx of Chaha includes /ö/ is also supported by independent evidence. For instance, the presence of a labial element in the plural suﬃx is attested in forms where the stem ends with a vowel, e.g. b6k6-öo-m/b6k6-wo-m ‘they () have cried’, from –öxI. The /U/ in (60a, b) is not, therefore, an exception to ﬂoating.25 Accordingly, we can state that every noninitial /U/ of Chaha ﬂoats to a preceding host. The seemingly nonﬂoating /U/ ﬂoats and docks on a host such as /ö/, which ﬁnally vocalizes. The vocalization is sometimes evident, as in /t’Göt’-n-U/ → [t’ut’Gn] /hold-accusative-it/ ‘hold it!’, where the seemingly nonﬂoating [u] is in fact öw. In my view, /U/ may surface independently only if it is part of the root and none of the other root consonants can support it, as in w6t’6r ‘has invented’ and t6-zwat’6r ‘has stretched oneself’. In this account, there is no ﬂoating vs. nonﬂoating /U/ diﬀerence. The suﬃx -u ‘it/he is’, as in bet-u ‘it is a house’, is an exception to ﬂoating, so it triggers neither labialization nor palatalization of the stem consonants. Given that it is a verb the -u here can also be treated as a stem. A nonﬂoating [w] arises also due to onset creation, to break a hiatus, as shown in /t6mari-u/ → [t6mariyu]/[t6mariwu] ‘he is a student’.

25. Polotsky (1938: 164) proposes a diachronic *mu¯ as the plural masculine marker. This view is accepted also in Leslau (1967: 1153, footnote 20). As Polotsky shows the suﬃx is mu¯ in Geäez and mw in Muher supporting that the reconstruction is correct. However, from a synchronic point of view, mw does not vocalize to [w/u] in Chaha while öw does. Due to this I preferred positing /öU/ → [u] instead of /mU/ → [u]. See §8.4.2 on the vowel intervening between /x/ and /ö/ in (60b).

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

7.9

235

Conclusion

In this chapter I have shown simultaneous processes of labialization and palatalization occurring in a number of contexts listed below. These are illustrated with a representative example. In all but the last four, the labialized segment linearly precedes the palatalized one. Table 7.1. Summary of contexts with simultaneous labialization and palatalization (61)

Type (or category) of the word

I. Verbal participle II. Noun I III. Noun II IV. Noun III V. Adjectival/nominal participle I VI. Adjectival/nominal participle II VII. Adjective and/or noun VIII. Inﬁnitives IX. Impersonal X. Masculine plural subject XI. U-ﬁnal verbs XII. Distribution of w and y XIII. Alternation XIV. Other alternation XV. 3  object XVI. Labialization and palatalization XVII. Numerals XVIII. Ambivalence between w and y

Language

Examples

Chaha Chaha Chaha Chaha Chaha Chaha Chaha Inor Chaha Inor Chaha Tigrinya Tigrinya Tigrinya Muher Tigrinya Tigrinya Tigre

t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’ wGpwac6 ‘choice’ f wGcf wGc-6(r) ‘ crumbled’ 6gwŠ-a ‘ally’ a-örak’wc’-at ‘spoiled’ k’wGrc’Gm ‘splinters of wood’ gwGcm-a ‘without stew’ 6-gwr6w-t ‘to age’ k6f w6c ‘one has opened’ g(w)GroŠ-ua ‘age ( )!’ f w6w6 ‘has farted’ t6w6y ‘has tuned’ f6t6w/f w6t6y ‘has loved’ f6t6w/f6t6y ‘has loved’ kGfGcc/kGtGﬀ w ‘open/chop it!’ w6l6k’w ‘has been hot’ wuæ dduwte» ‘six’ limut/lGmayGt ‘so that he die/imperfective’

I proposed that simultaneous labialization and palatalization are triggered by a unique phoneme /U/. This is achieved by dissociating the features [round] and [high] of /U/ from their articulators, which allows them to be autonomous and aﬀect diﬀerent segments independently. This analysis explains naturally why labialization entails palatalization. In addition, it eliminates the need for discontinuous morphemes. For instance, the impersonal suﬃx is a unique underlying phoneme /U/ which has four surface realizations (i.e. w(…)y, w, y and Ø) depending on the nature of preceding consonants. I argued that there is no [w] vs. [u] contrast, as both derive from /U/. Similarly, there is no ﬂoating vs. nonﬂoating /U/. Consequently, [w(…)y, w, Ø, w, u] and some instances of [y] are all allophones of /U/.

236

SOUND MUTATIONS

Labialization and/or palatalization triggered only by inﬂectional aﬃxes (impersonal subject, 3  object, 2  and Inor inﬁnitive and  ) have been discussed in the literature. But this chapter has documented and explained a variety of hitherto unnoticed grammatical categories. Labialization and/or palatalization triggered by derivational aﬃxes (forming adjectival/nominal and verbal participles as well as nouns) were discussed and given a uniﬁed account with those triggered by inﬂectional aﬃxes. Similarly, it has been shown that labialization and/or palatalization triggered by a radical /U/ supports the analysis. My proposal, without having recourse to stipulations or grammatical categories, also gives plausible explanations for the interaction of labialization and palatalization. For example, there has not been an explanation as to why the impersonal subject triggers both labialization and palatalization whereas the 3  object triggers only labialization. (Note that an analysis which attributes the impersonal palatalization to the suﬃx -i fails to account for palatalization in the absence of -i and does not explain why this /I/ has a diﬀerent target (coronal obstruents) than the 2  /I/ (nonlabials)). In addition, why 2  palatalization targets nonlabials while impersonal palatalization targets only coronal obstruents (the two diﬀerent lists of palatalizable consonants) was so far arbitrary; it could have been the other way around. But, according to the present proposal, the very nature of the triggers (i.e. the features [high] of /U/ and [−back] of /I/) not only explains why their targets diﬀer but it also predicts the widely attested generalization that (a) front vowels have a wider range of palatalization targets than high back vowels and (b) palatalization of velars is mostly triggered by front vowels whereas that of coronals is triggered by both front and high back vowels (see Bhat 1978). Furthermore, the general restrictions on Coronal Palatalization (that the target must be left adjacent to the trigger) explain cases of labialization which do not entail palatalization, such as /U/ of the 3  object of Chaha (in contrast to the same suﬃx in Muher). The proposal that /U/ can both labialize and palatalize in Gurage was given striking support by parallel facts observed in Tigrinya. Palatalization in Tigrinya numerals and simultaneous labialization and palatalization in words such as w6l6k’w ‘has been hot’ are now satisfactorily explained as originating from a unique /U/. Finally, the decomposition of /U, I/ proposed in this chapter readily explains what I called, in the introduction to the book, a consonant enrichment at the expense of vowel impoverishment. We have seen that almost every /U, I/ decomposes. The decomposed /U, I/ have enriched the consonant inventory by introducing a secondary articulation. We have also seen that the original site of the decomposed /U, I/ is either vowelless or occupied by an epenthetic [G]. It then

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

237

follows why the frequency of [u] (and any back vowel, as they all include /U/) and [i] (and any front vowel, as they all include /I/) is much smaller than that of any central vowel (which does not decompose to dock on a consonant). Back and front vowels are impoverished with the rise of a secondary articulation.

Appendix 7 Some factual errors concerning labialization 1. The Perfective 1SG vs. 2PL MASC subjects The 1 [−xwG] in (1a) is often confused with the 2  [xu] in (1b), both repeated from (60), as in Polotsky (1938: 146), Leslau (1950: 28) and Hetzron (1977: 64). (1)

a.

b.

/k6f6t-xU-m/ → [k6f6txwGm] open-1-past ‘I have opened .’ /k6f6t-xG-öU-m/ → [k6f6txum] open-2- -past ‘You ( ) have opened .’

There is a phonetic resemblance between the two but they are not the same everywhere. This is especially true in CwGC and CuC contexts such as xwGm and xum in (1). Even here, they are not pronounced in the same way but it may be diﬃcult for a nonnative linguist to detect the diﬀerence. As Polotsky (1938: 146) notes, in cases where -xw is at the end (where there is no epenthetic [G]), as in a-]-k6f6t-xw ‘I have not opened ’, it becomes clear that the ﬁrst person is -xw and not -xu, cf. *a]k6f6txu. Polotsky’s (1951) misunderstanding concerning these suﬃxes originates from Leslau (1950). Some amendments are in order: I. Polotsky’s (p. 31) yad6k-xu-n b6x6r6 ‘if I throw him’ should be corrected as y-ad6g-xwG-n b6x6r6; yad6k-xu-n b6x6r6 can only mean ‘if you ( ) throw me’. The same correction goes for g6th6r-xu-nG(m) ‘I put him to bed’. II. y6-c’6k’os-k6 k’ar ‘what I have asked thee’ (p. 31) should be y6c’6k’w6s-k6 k’ar. III. b-o¯d-Gx6 ‘if I tell thee (masc.)’ (p. 32) should be corrected as b-od-k6; b-odx6 can only mean ‘if you ( ) tell’. The same correction goes for abx6-m ‘I have given thee’.

238

SOUND MUTATIONS

IV. n6k6ö-ku-m c’or-ku-m ‘I found and loaded’ (p. 32) should be corrected as n6k6ö-xwG-m c’or-xwG-m. n6k6ö-ku-m c’or-ku-m can only mean ‘I found and carried you ( )’. In addition, x6r-ku-m ‘you () have become’ should be x6r-x-u-m. The x of the subject suﬃxes does not strengthen to [k]. V. y6t’6pwaxw6 (i.e. y6-t’6pw6-xw-w6) ‘with which I have sucked’ (p. 31) should be corrected as y6-t’6pw6-x-w6. The 1 -xw is never used before object suﬃxes, hence, *y6t’6pwaxw6. Here, [w] is a labialized instrumental case marker /-ö/, whose derivation is as in (2). (2)

/y6-t’6öö6U-x-ö-6U/ → [y6-t’6pw6xw6] past-suck-1-instrumental-3  ‘with which I have sucked’

[xw] in (2) is a cluster diﬀerent from the secondary articulation in [xwG], (1a), and the simple phonetic CV [xu] of (1b). (See Petros 1996a: 136–7 for arguments to analyze the preﬁx y6- of (2) as a past tense marker.) 2. Labialization in the Perfective 1SG subject vs. the 3SG MASC object The Perfective 1 subject has two suﬃxal allomorphs: /-x/ and /-xU/ → [xw]. The suﬃx /-x/ is used before object suﬃxes, e.g. g6t6r-xG-r-a-m ‘I have put it (e.g. the baby) to sleep for her’. The allomorph /-x/ was unknown in previous studies and, due to that, some misconceptions have arisen concerning the source of [w], as in g6t6rxwGr6m ‘I have put it to sleep for him’. For instance, the absence of [w] on segments preceding /-x/, cf. *gw6t6rxwGnGm, is considered an exception to 3  object labialization in Polotsky (1971: 548). Hetzron (1971: 196) also claims that the 3  object labialization has been blocked by the labial character of the 1. Finally, McCarthy (1983: 187, note 5) attributes it to: “[…] (vacuous) labialization of the suﬃxal labiovelar xw.” It is true that the object suﬃx [w] does not reach the stem in the Perfective 1 subject conjugation. However, according to my analysis, this is because [w] docks on /-x/. So /-x/ in words such as [g6t6r-xG-n-U-m] → [g6t6rxwGnGm] ‘I have put him to sleep’ is labialized due to the object /-U/. Accordingly, the point that both Polotsky (1951: 548) and Hetzron (1971: 196) make, i.e. that: “[…] the last labializable consonant must not necessarily be part of the root […]” (as formulated by Hetzron), is intact since the subject /-x/ is labialized due to the object, as in [g6t6r-xG-n-U-m] → [g6t6rxwGnGm]. As noted in Polotsky (1951: 548) and Hetzron (1971: 196), the consonants of subject and case suﬃxes can be labialized if they are the rightmost labial or velar.

LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/

239

3. Labialized consonants of the stem and suﬃx triggered labialization The data in (3a) are found in McCarthy (1983: 183). The same data are written diﬀerently as in (3b) in Leslau (1967: 1159), Johnson (1975: 35, note 4) and Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994: 317, they refer to Hendriks (1989)). (The suﬃxes 6m (Personal) and im (Impersonal) are omitted). Based on (3b), Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994: 317) claim that: “the morphological labialization skips over the root’s labialized /mw/ and docks on the unlabialized velar to the left.” Hetzron (personal communication with Johnson, see Johnson 1975: 35, note 4) disagrees with the forms in (3b) and believes that those in (3a) are correct. Nevertheless, both forms in (3a) and the Personal form in (3b) are inaccurate. The correct forms are as shown in (3c). (3) a. b. c.

Personal t6gmw6mw6t’ t6gmw6mw6t’ t6-gwm6m6t’

Impersonal t6gmw6mw6c’ t6gwmw6mw6c’ t6-gwmw6mw6c’

‘rinse’ ‘rinse’ ‘rinse’

The Personal t6-gwm6m6t’ in (3c) has four distinct radicals: –gUmt’. The features of /U/ dock on consonants that precede it so [round] labializes /g/ (see also Prunet and Petros 1996: 331). In addition, when the impersonal suﬃx /U/ is added, as in t6-gwm6m6t’-U, the features of the suﬃxal /U/ dock on the consonants that precede it. So [round] labializes /m/ and [high] palatalizes /t’/ without skipping over any labialized consonant. Skipping (which incurs crossing of association lines) does not occur in any context, e.g. e.g. fGk’w6n6 ‘he has whistled’ vs. fGk’w6n6 (not *f wGk’w6n6) ‘one has whistled’ (from –fk’rU).

C 8 Subject Affixes

8.1

Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to argue that the subject aﬃxes of Chaha comprise two independent syntactic positions. (See Halefom 1994 for comparable analysis of Amharic Nonperfective subject aﬃxes.) The proposal eliminates the problem of discontinuous morphemes from the analysis of Chaha subject aﬃxes and allows us to give a principled account of the choice of object suﬃx allomorphs known as Light and Heavy (to be discussed in Chapter 9). In addition, the proposal correctly predicts blocking of third person singular object labialization by some aﬃxes. Nouns in Chaha do not have number and gender markers, e.g. at bet ‘one house’ vs. sost bet ‘three houses’, except for rare lexical diﬀerences in human nouns: 6rc/dengya ‘boy/boys’, g6r6d/gGred ‘girl/girls’, mGs/g6m6ya ‘man/men’, mGwt/Gwta ‘woman/women’ (see also Leslau 1950: 16, Hetzron 1977: 52 and Ford 1991: 288). I am also aware of only two nonhuman nouns with diﬀerent forms in the singular and plural: 6ram/6r7 ‘cow/cows, cattle’ and d6k/m6g6ra ‘calf/ calves’. Plural is marked either by adding a cardinal number or a deﬁnite article to a noun which itself lacks number speciﬁcations. The agreement suﬃxes on the verb indicate whether a noun is singular or plural. Only the two nouns g6r6d/gGred ‘girl/girls’ and mGwt/Gwta ‘woman/women’ as well as the feminine pronouns can trigger [Feminine] agreement on the verb in Chaha. Nouns that are modiﬁed by a superlative () suﬃx -w6t trigger a [Feminine] agreement, e.g. m6rk-am-w6t ot’7t tG-c6n-te (beauty-ful-superlative () singer she-come-future) ‘the most beautiful woman singer is going to come’ (see also §7.5.3 on this suﬃx). Other nouns do not have grammatical gender but they are [Masculine] by default. This triggers [Masculine] agreement on the verb regardless of the biological gender. If a noun triggers [Feminine] agreement on the verb it is necessarily human. A feminine nonhuman subject cannot trigger [Feminine] agreement, e.g. 6r7 yG-g6ö-o (cows 3-enter- ) ‘cows are entering’, and not *6r7 yG-g6ö-6ma (cow 3-enter- ).

242

SOUND MUTATIONS

This chapter is organized as follows. In §8.2 I separate subject aﬃxes in two classes (variable and invariable) and argue that each class belongs to a diﬀerent syntactic position.1 Following Halefom (1994), I assume that one of the positions is a subject clitic and the other is a subject agreement. Section 8.3 presents alternating preﬁxes and §8.3 discusses alternating suﬃxes. It is argued that the alternations receive a better account by the proposal. Some concluding remarks are given in §8.5.

8.2

Variable vs. invariable subject aﬃxes

The subject aﬃxes of Ethiopian Semitic languages divide into two types which I label “variable” and “invariable.” Variable aﬃxes are not constant; they are aspect-sensitive. For instance, the phonological content and linear order (with respect to the stem) of the 1 aﬃx varies according to the aspect of the verb, it is -xwG in the Perfective, (1a), and 6- in the Imperfective, (1b).2 (1)

Chaha subject conjugation a. Perfective b. Singular Plural 1st k6f6t-xwG-m k6f6t-n6-m 2 k6f6t-x6-m k6f6t-xu-m 2 k6f6t-çG-m k6f6t-xGma-m 3 k6f6t6-Ø-m k6f6t-o-m 3 k6f6t6-cG-m k6f6t-6ma-m Impersonal k6f w6tyG-m

Imperfective Singular Plural 6-k6ft nG-k6ftG-n6 tG-k6ft tG-k6ft-o tG-k6fty tG-k6ft-6ma yG-k6ft yG-k6ft-o tG-k6ft yG-k6ft-6ma yG-k6f wtyG-m

On the other hand, invariable subject aﬃxes are constant and are insensitive to the aspect of the verb. For example, the phonological content and the linear order of the 1 suﬃx is -n6 in the Perfective, (1a), and Imperfective, (1b). The 1 preﬁx nG- of (1b) is not found in (1a), which implies that it is variable. This variable vs.

1. The variable class of aﬃxes corresponds to the “person” markers and the invariable class of aﬃxes corresponds to the “number” and “gender” markers of Petros (Banksira) (1996a, 1997). 2. The forms discussed in this chapter are extracted from an expanded conjugation of the root kft ‘open’, given in Appendix 9. The suﬃxes of the Imperfective are used also in the Imperative/ Jussive. There are -x/-xw, -n6/-ne and -c/-c6 alternations but these will only be discussed in §8.4. We may disregard the ﬁnal -m of the Perfective as it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

SUBJECT AFFIXES

243

invariable aﬃx distinction holds in all Ethiopian Semitic languages.3 Notice that even though each aﬃx is able to express the 1 subject, both nG- and -n6 are used — one of them redundantly. Similar redundancy is found also in the 2  in that even though palatalization alone is suﬃcient to express 2  the second person preﬁx tG- is used concomitantly. In addition, there is no formal parallelism between the plural of (1b), where the agreement marker is both a preﬁx and a suﬃx, and the rest, where the agreement marker is either a preﬁx or a suﬃx but not both. As an attempt to solve these problems I propose that there are two syntactically independent subject positions, abbreviated as Q1 and Q2. The template in (2a) is thus [[[stem] Q1] Q2] while the one in (2b) is [[Q1 [stem]] Q2]. In both, Q1 is adjacent to the stem while Q2 is not.4 (2)

Analysis of Chaha subject conjugation5,6 Perfective7 b. Imperfective Singular Plural Singular Plural 1st k6f6t-xwG-Ø-m k6f6t -Ø-n6-m 6-k6ft-Ø nG-k6ftG-n6 2 k6f6t-x6-Ø-m k6f6t-x-o-m tG-k6ft-Ø tG-k6ft-o 2 k6f6t-x-I-m k6f6t-x-6ma-m tG-k6ft-I tG-k6ft-6ma 3 k6f6t6-Ø-Ø-m k6f6t-Ø-o-m yG-k6ft-Ø yG-k6ft-o 3 k6f6t6-cG-Ø-m k6f6t-Ø-6ma-m tG-k6ft-Ø yG-k6ft-6ma Impersonal k6f6t-Ø-U-m yG-k6ft-U-m a.

3. In all Ethiopian Semitic languages the  ⁄ and the palatal   suﬃxes are present in all conjugations while the other singular suﬃxes are absent. On the other hand, the 1 suﬃx is present in all conjugations in some languages such as Gogot and Muxer (Hetzron 1968: 159) and Selt’i (Leslau 1992: 286) while it is present only in some conjugations in languages such as Amharic (Halefom 1994: 148), Gafat (Leslau 1956: 101), Geäez (Dillmann 1907, conjugations), Harari (Leslau 1992: 286), Soddo (Hetzron 1968: 159), Tigre (Raz 1983: 55ﬀ.) and Tigrinya (Berhane 1991: 176ﬀ.). 4. In languages like Amharic the 1 aﬃx is variable so it should be categorized as Q1. See Halle (1992) on Q’s as abstract morphemes and Petros (1996a) for a number of cases in which a morpheme appears on the opposite side of the stem based on diﬀerent conditions. 5. The suﬃxes /U, I/ are ﬂoating so they do not surface independently. As shown in Chapter 7, /U/ triggers labialization of the nearest preceding labial or dorsal as well as palatalization of a leftadjacent coronal obstruent, whereas /I/ triggers palatalization of the nearest preceding target. 6. I argued in §7.8 that the   -(6)u includes /ö/, i.e. it is /-6öU/. In this view, the derivation of -x-u ‘2 ’ will be: /x6-6öU/ → /xGöw/ → /xGu/ → [xu] and that of -o ‘ ’ will be: /-6öU/ → /6öw/ → /6u/ → [o]. See Leslau Polotsky (1938: 164) and Leslau (1967: 1153) on the reduction of labialized *bw and *mw to u or o. See §8.4.2 concerning the /6/ of /-x6/ and /-6öU/. 7. I assume that the Perfective stem ends with 6 as in k6f6t6-m. The ﬁnal 6 truncates when followed by a CV, e.g. k6f6t6-x6-m6 → k6f6t-x6-m or a vocoid, e.g. k6f6t6-o-m → k6f6t-o-m. The 6 of k6f6t6-cG-m does not truncate because the c that follows it is a simpliﬁed geminate cc (hence it is not followed by a CV). The geminate cc is seen in geminating languages such as Amharic, e.g. k6ﬀ6t6cc, not *k6ﬀ6t6c.

244

SOUND MUTATIONS

The reader may notice that some of the overtly realized Perfective suﬃxes are Q1 while others are Q2. The linear order of Q1 (i.e. whether it is a suﬃx or a preﬁx) varies according to aspect; it is the ﬁrst suﬃx in the Perfective and the preﬁx in the Imperfective. The morphosyntactic feature values of Q1 have no role in determining its linear order with respect to the stem. But the phonological content of Q1 varies according both to the aspect of the verb and its morphosyntactic feature values. Accordingly, the aspects Perfective or Imperfective must be encoded in the lexical entries of Q1 aﬃxes. Thus, Q1 is a fused aspect and subject clitic. In this account, the suﬃx Q1 of the Perfective and the preﬁx Q1 of the Imperfective hold one and the same syntactic position. In other words, even though the linear order and phonological content of Q1 diﬀers from one aspect to the other, it represents a unique/fused syntactic head in both cases. On the other hand, the linear order of Q2 is invariable and its phonological content varies according only to the subject of the verb. Aspect has no impact on Q2; this marks only subject agreement. Given this distinction, the dichotomy between variable and invariable subject aﬃxes makes sense: Q1 (aspect + subject clitic) is variable whereas Q2 (subject agreement) is not. The head Q1 gets/copies aspect and the morphosyntactic features of the subject from the verb. The head Q2 copies all the morphosyntactic features of Q1 save the aspect. While studying the Semitic verb conjugation one should observe that in some forms we can tell the aspect of each stem by looking only at the stem alternation, e.g. k6f6t- / -k6ft, from (2). This suggests that the verb stem encodes aspect and that stem and aspect are inseparable. On the other hand, the cited stems are never found without an aﬃx and a single stem may convey diﬀerent aspects based on the aﬃx it takes, as in y6-kGft ‘let him open’ vs. w6-kGft ‘to open’. The participle kGfcGt6 ‘having opened’ (known as the t-conveb) is also formed from the same stem kGft with a suﬃx -It6. In these examples, the aspect of the verb can be distinguished based only on the aﬃxes (y6- is Jussive, w6- is inﬁnitive and -It6 is participle), suggesting that aﬃxes and aspect form a constituent. In other words, aspect forms a constituent with both the stem and the Q1 aﬃx: [Verb stem [aﬃx aspect Verb] aﬃx aﬃx] (order irrelevant). In addition, aspect is phonologically distinct neither from the verb stem nor the Q1 aﬃx. The whole constituent [Verb stem [aﬃx aspect Verb] aﬃx aﬃx] cannot therefore decompose to its individual constituents. This diﬃculty receives a plausible account in the representations proposed in (3a, b).

245

SUBJECT AFFIXES

(3)

a.

Perfective

b.

Imperfective

Q2

Q2 Q1 [+Perf] V

Q1 -Ø

k6f6t k6f6t-Ø-n6(-m) ‘We have opened.’

Q1 [–Perf]

Q2 -n6 V

Q2 -n6

Q1

V V Q1 k6fti ti nGnG-k6ft-n6 ‘We open/are opening.’

Notice that variable (or Q1) subject suﬃxes are found only in the Perfective (they are preﬁxes in the Imperfective) whereas invariable ones have the same linear order and phonological content in both Perfective and Imperfective aspects. Given these representations, we can state that Q1 and everything beneath it is speciﬁed for aspect whereas everything above Q1 is not so speciﬁed. In addition, Q1 has aspect features and these can trigger verb raising. Thus, you can ﬁnd Q1 in diﬀerent positions relative to the verb. For instance, the Perfective aspect of Q1 in (3a) does not trigger verb raising so Q1 remains in its suﬃx position. On the other hand, the Imperfective Q1 in (3b) triggers verb raising, and that brings Q1 to a preﬁx position. This explains why the linear order of Q1 is variable. In contrast, Q2 does not include aspect features, thus never triggers verb raising. This explains why it always appears as a suﬃx. 8.2.1 Q1 as aspect and subject clitic In Distributed Morphology, which I assume in this chapter, grammatical positions such as Q1 are fully speciﬁed morphosyntactic feature matrices whereas the aﬃxes to be inserted in these positions are only partially speciﬁed.8 For an aﬃx to be inserted at a node such as Q1 it should not contain any incompatible

8. For diﬀerent analyses of subject agreement aﬃxes in Distributed Morphology framework, see, among others, Noyer (1992), Halefom (1994, for Amharic), Halle (1997), Halefom and Lumsden (1998) and Lumsden and Halefom (1999). (See, for example, Bender and Fulass (1978), Baye (1994) and Frew (1994) for a general description of the Amharic verbal system.) Fulmer (1990) shows that the linear order of some aﬃxes in Afar depends on the phonology of the stem. My view is compatible with her claim but I restrict the class of variable suﬃxes of Chaha, i.e. the linear order of Q1 varies depending on the Perfective or Nonperfective nature of the stem while that of Q2 is invariably suﬃxal.

246

SOUND MUTATIONS

speciﬁcations. For example, the aﬃx in (4a), speciﬁed for the features [−Perfect, −Plural, +Feminine, +3], is incompatible with a Q1 speciﬁed as [+Perfect] so it cannot be inserted because they do not agree in the feature [+Perfect]. On the other hand, an aﬃx with all, some or even none of the speciﬁcations of Q1 can be inserted at Q1 as long as the aﬃx does not contain an incompatible speciﬁcation. The Imperfective preﬁxes of Chaha can thus be speciﬁed as follows.9 (4)

Imperfective preﬁxes (= Q1) a. t- [−Perfect, −Plural, +Feminine, +3] b. 6- [−Perfect, −Plural, +1] c. N- [−Perfect, +1] d. t- [−Perfect, −1, −3] e. y- [−Perfect]

3  1 1 2 Elsewhere

The reader may notice from the conjugation in (2) that word initially, these preﬁxes are augmented to a syllable by adding an epenthetic vowel [G], which is omitted in (4). When the nasal in the ﬁrst person is followed by a consonant it agrees with it in place, so we can say that it is unspeciﬁed for place. I consequently write it as N-. In addition, [y] of the preﬁxes may vocalize when it is noninitial, e.g. t-y-k6ft → tik6ft ‘while he opens’ and a-y-k6ft → ek6ft ‘he does not open’, so it can be written as an archiphoneme /I/ but I am writing it as yfollowing the tradition. Chaha uses [+Feminine] only when the subject is [+Human]. A nonhuman subject cannot be [+Feminine] even when its natural gender is feminine, cf. z(Gx) 6ram yG-t-waka ‘this cow ﬁghts’ vs. z(Gx) wGr yG-t-waka ‘this bull ﬁghts’, where there is no diﬀerence in agreement. This shows that the preﬁx y- in (4e), as well as any aﬃx in Chaha, should not be speciﬁed as [−Feminine] (because no aﬃx is used exclusively for masculine gender). The preﬁx y- is also used in the impersonal. But the impersonal aﬃx has no person speciﬁcation as it can be used while the subject may be thought of as the ﬁrst, second or third persons. This is a very good indication that y- is the elsewhere preﬁx and it is not speciﬁed as [+3]. Notice also that, as long as we are dealing with human language, the speaker (i.e. [+1]) and the addressee (i.e. [−3, −1]) imply [+Human]. Thus, ﬁrst and second person as well as third feminine, i.e. (5a–d), imply [+Human]. The Q1 suﬃxes are speciﬁed as in (5), where (4a–c), imply [+Human]. All the speciﬁcations of the aﬃx -c in (5a) are found in a Q1 speciﬁed as Perfective

9. I view the two t’s in (4a) and (4d) as homophones. I use the person features [±1, ±3] for convenience, ﬁrst person is abbreviated as [+1], second person as [−1, −3] and third person as [+3].

247

SUBJECT AFFIXES

third singular feminine. Here, the morphosyntactic feature speciﬁcation of Q1 totally matches that of the aﬃx, so that aﬃx is inserted. However, such total matching is not always achieved. For instance, no aﬃx in (5) matches in person, number and gender a Q1 speciﬁed as Perfective third plural feminine. All the aﬃxes in (5a–c) contain at least one feature speciﬁcation that is incompatible with the Perfective third plural feminine. In such a case, the Elsewhere Perfective -Ø is inserted. (5)

Perfective Q1 suﬃxes a. -c [+Perfect, −Plural, +Feminine, +3] b. -xw [+Perfect, −Plural, +1] c. -x6 [+Perfect, −1, −3] d. -Ø [+Perfect]

3  1 2 Elsewhere

Notice that the suﬃxes -c and -xw are not speciﬁed equally. The suﬃx -c is [+Feminine] whereas -xw is not [+Feminine]. Similarly, -c includes all the speciﬁcations of -x6 while -x6 has no speciﬁcation for number and gender. Accordingly, -c is the most speciﬁed item in (5) so it should be inserted ﬁrst. The remaining items are inserted following the order in (5). (However, notice that [−1, −3] means second person so it has no more speciﬁcations than [+1] or [+3].) 8.2.2 Q2 as subject agreement The Q2 suﬃxes are speciﬁed as in (6). These partially speciﬁed items are inserted at a compatible subject agreement node, Q2. The node is ﬁlled following the order in (6), which starts from the most speciﬁed form and goes to the least speciﬁed one. The suﬃx -I in (6a) is the most speciﬁed as it marks person, number and gender. (6)

Subject agreement (= Q2) a. -I [−Plural, +Feminine, −1, −3] b. -6ma [+Plural, +Feminine, −1] c. -o [+Plural, −1] d. -n6 [+Plural, +1] e. -U [+Human] f. -Ø [ ]

2      1 Impersonal Elsewhere

Two women cannot refer to themselves using -6ma and two men cannot refer to themselves using -o so these suﬃxes should be speciﬁed as [−1], (6b, c). Each suﬃx in (6c, d) is speciﬁed for two features but there is no competition between them as they are disjoint. However, (6d) must be inserted before (6e, f) to block

248

SOUND MUTATIONS

the insertion of -U or -Ø in a node speciﬁed as ﬁrst plural. In other words, even though -U and -Ø are compatible for insertion at a node speciﬁed as ﬁrst plural, the presence of a compatible and more speciﬁed item -n6 in (6d) blocks the insertion of these suﬃxes. Because no item in (6) is speciﬁed as, say, second plural masculine the item speciﬁed only as [+Plural, −1] is inserted in that node. The impersonal may be seen as having both values for person, number and gender features, i.e. [±Plural, ±Feminine, ±1, ±3] (see Lumsden and Halefom 1999: 32 and the references therein for a proposed speciﬁcation along these lines). This is equivalent to saying that the impersonal aﬃx has no person, number and gender speciﬁcation. This claim is mainly supported by the fact that the impersonal does not exclude any person, number or gender while it does not necessarily express a speciﬁc person, number or gender. It can be used when the subject may be thought of as ﬁrst, second or third person, singular or plural, masculine or feminine. However, since it can only be used when the subject of the sentence is human it should be speciﬁed as [+Human]. The unspeciﬁed Elsewhere suﬃx is inserted in all the remaining cases. One of the peculiarities of the impersonal sentence is that it does not have an NP (be it lexical or pronominal) in the subject position. Take the following very common sentence of the impersonal construction, which is equivalent to the English expression good morning. (7)

w6xe-m at6r-i-m?10 well-m spent the night-(it)-past ‘Have one spent the night well?’

This sentence can be used at the beginning of a conversation and, yet, it has no subject. So two related questions arise: (a) what does the claimed clitic Q1 stand for in this sentence? and (b) what triggers agreement? Given the claim that Q1 aﬃxes are instantiations of clitic doubling my analysis predicts that there should not be a distinct Q1 aﬃx for the impersonal because there is no subject to be doubled. This prediction is borne out as no distinct impersonal aﬃx is found in (4) and (5), i.e. it has the Elsewhere aﬃx in both cases. However, the impersonal cannot be used when the subject may be thought of as anything diﬀerent from human, so it needs to be speciﬁed as [+Human] when used as a subject agreement, (6e). Due to this we have a distinct Q2 impersonal suﬃx. Notice that in an analysis where there is no Q1 vs. Q2 distinction -xw and

10. Labialization does not occur because there is no labializable consonant. The m in w6xe-m is epenthetic inserted to break the hiatus (to be compared with w6xe war-i-m ‘good afternoon’).

SUBJECT AFFIXES

249

-n6 have the same status. But my analysis (8) considers -xw as a Q1 suﬃx and -n6 as a Q2 suﬃx. The advantages of my analysis becomes evident when we compare the two columns in (8). Given that Q1 aﬃxes are preﬁxes in the Imperfective, a Q1 suﬃx should not be found in this aspect. Accordingly, the Q1 suﬃx -xw is not found in the Imperfective while -n6 is found in both aspects as this is the case for all Q2 suﬃxes. (8) a. b.

Perfective 1 k6f6t-xwG-Ø-m 1 k6f6t-Ø-n6-m

Imperfective 6-kGft- Ø nG-kGftG-n6

In an analysis where both -xw and -n6 are members of the same set it is diﬃcult to account for the absence of -xw in the Imperfective. -xw could have been invariable the way -n6 is. Similarly, the fact that -n6 remains invariable even in cases where Q1 is clearly a preﬁx, cf. the Imperfective of (8b), is problematic. But -xw and -n6 in my analysis are members of diﬀerent sets. The variability of -xw and the invariability of -n6 are derivable from the characteristic of the set to which each aﬃx belongs. The other point that needs to be addressed here is that of relatedness. For instance, the [çG] in (9a) has previously been analyzed as a single 2  suﬃx. On the other hand, the -I (which is realized as palatalization in (9b)) has also been analyzed as the 2  suﬃx (Leslau 1950: 14 and Polotsky 1951: 21). In these previous analyses there is no common 2  suﬃx. In my analysis, however, (9a) and (9b) have the invariable -I in common which signiﬁes the 2  subject agreement. In addition, this -I shares the characteristic common to all Q2 suﬃxes. (9)

The nonnull 2  aﬃx as subject agreement (= Q2) a. [[[k6f6t6 V] -x] -I] -m = [k6f6tçGm] [[[open2- 2 -past ‘You ( ) have opened .’ b. [[tG- [k6ft V] Q1] -I Q2] = [tGk6fc] [[2- [open -2  ‘You ( ) open .’

The suﬃx -x of (9a) is also common to all second person Perfective forms. To sum up, the subject aﬃxes include the Q1 preﬁx set in (10a) and suﬃx set in (10b). (These are the aﬃxes of (4) and (5) respectively.) Every element in each set enters in a disjunctive relationship with an element in the other set, forming the disjunctive set (10c). Each disjunctive pair in (10c) has the corresponding meaning given in (10d). Aspect determines the member of the pair to

250

SOUND MUTATIONS

be used in a given sentence so the ﬁrst member is used in [−Perf] and the second member in [+Perf]. (10) a. Q1 preﬁx set: {t-, 6-, N-, t-, y-} b. Q1 suﬃx set: {-c, -xw, -x6, -Ø} c. Q1 disjunctive set: {(t- ∨ -c), (6- ∨ -xw), (N- ∨ -Ø), (t- ∨ -x6), (y- ∨ -Ø)} | | | | | d. Q1 meaning: {3 , 1, 1, 2, Elsewhere} The subject aﬃxes also include the Q2 set, (11a). Recall that these are all suﬃxes and they are independent of Q1, except that Q1 and Q2 agree in the morphosyntactic features. Each element in (11a) has the corresponding meaning given in (11b). (11) a. Q2 set:

{-I,} -6ma, -o, -n6, -U, -Ø} | | | | | | b. Q2 meaning: {2 ,  ,  , 1, Impersonal, Elsewhere} The union of sets (10c) and (11a) exhaust the inventory of Chaha subject aﬃxes. Every verb must have one element from each set. This inventory minimizes the elements of the set more than ever without missing generalizations. This constitutes the overall analysis of Chaha subject aﬃxes. Some details concerning alternating aﬃxes will be addressed in the following sections.

8.3

Alternating prefixes

In order to account for the diﬀerent realizations of subject preﬁxes and to give accurate characterization of verbal tense and aspect a more reﬁned division than what has been known as Imperfective and Jussive is needed. Let us ﬁrst examine what the Imperfective and Jussive aspects convey in Chaha. The bare Imperfective expresses both the simple present and present continuous, and when combined with the auxiliary ba(n6) ‘was’ it signiﬁes the past continuous. When it is followed by what is traditionally called the deﬁnite future -te it expresses the Future Indicative (see Hetzron 1996 on the two future suﬃxes). So what is labeled as bare Imperfective in the conjugation (1, 2) is in fact the Present Indicative of the following table. On the other hand, the bare Jussive expresses an order, where the person being ordered is diﬀerent from the addressee. But

SUBJECT AFFIXES

251

what is usually called the Jussive is in fact the Present Subjunctive of this table. That is, when combined with the auxiliary ba(n6) the Jussive denotes the Past Subjunctive (irrealis), and when it is followed by what is traditionally called the indeﬁnite future -w6 it expresses the Future Subjunctive. In this account, the Imperfective stem is used to express the Past, Present and Future Indicative, and the Jussive stem for the Past, Present and Future Subjunctive.11 Table 8.1. Absence of alternation in the 3SG FEM preﬁx (12)

Indicative

Past tG-k6ft ba(n6) ‘she was opening’ Present tG-k6ft ‘she opens/is opening’ Future tG-k6ftG-te ‘she will open’ [we know]

Subjunctive tG-kGft ba(n6) ‘she could have opened’ tG-kGft ‘Let her open!’ tG-kGftG-w6 ‘she will open’ [we hope]

The 3  preﬁx t- is used in all the six slots above. Similarly, the 1 preﬁx would be N- in all these slots. In other words, the preﬁx t- of the 3  and N- of the 1 do not alternate due to tense (Past, Present and Future) and mood (Indicative and Subjunctive). But the remaining three preﬁxes have at least two alternating forms: 6-/N- in the 1, t-/Ø- in the second and yG-/y6-/Ø- in the third persons and the impersonal. The remainder of this section will describe and account for these alternations. 8.3.1 The 6- vs. N- alternation in the 1SG The 1 preﬁx is normally 6- when it is word-initial, as in the ﬁrst column of (13). The preﬁx is a homorganic nasal N- if it is word-medial, as in the negative forms shown in the third and forth columns.12 But a word-initial N- (which surfaces as n due to a following vowel) appears also in the Present Subjunctive nG-kGft.

11. Similar division can be made also for the Perfective, which represents both the simple past and present perfect. When combined with the auxiliary ba(n6) ‘was’ the Perfective denotes the English past perfect. In all cases, the Perfective denotes a completed action either in the past or present (it does not form a future perfect). 12. That the 1 preﬁx is N- here is not related with the nature of the negative preﬁx a- since we also have N- in aﬃrmative forms such as tG-m-b6ra ‘while I eat’, tG-n-t’6ra ‘while I call’ and tG-]-k6ft ‘while I open’.

252

SOUND MUTATIONS

Table 8.2. Alternation in the 1SG preﬁx (13)

1 as initial preﬁx Indicative

Past 6-k6ft ba(n6) Present 6-k6ft Future 6-k6ftG-te

1 as medial preﬁx

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

6-kGft ba(n6) nG-kGft 6-kGftG-w6

b-a-]-k6ft a-]-k6ft a-]-k6ft

b-a-]-k6ft a-]-kGft a-]-k6ft

In the aﬃrmative (the ﬁrst two columns) we have a six-way distinction of which some are neutralized in the negative (the last two columns), i.e. only three distinct phonological forms ﬁll the six distinct semantic slots. Accordingly, a form such as a-]-k6ft is ambiguous in three ways; it can mean Indicative Present, Indicative Future and Subjunctive Future. The table also shows that the shape of the stem is not what determines the preﬁx alternation. The 6- vs. N- alternation is thus conditioned by the speciﬁcations of the substantive features [Subjunctive, Present] and the position of the aﬃx in the word. The alternation may be captured as a readjustment rule changing 6 to a nasal in the two contexts, shown in (14). (14)

The appearance of N in the 1  a. [+Subjunctive, +Present] 6- → N- /   b. # … ___ (i.e. word-medially)

  

In this analysis the similarity between the N- derived by (14) and the 1 is a phonological accident, i.e. the two N-’s are homophones. 8.3.2 The t- vs. Ø- alternation in the second person The second person preﬁx alternates between t- and Ø- (G in tG- is epenthetic, cf. Aﬃrmative vs. Negative). As shown below, the preﬁx Ø- is used in the Aﬃrmative of the Subjunctive Present while t- is used elsewhere. The Subjunctive Present, known as Imperative, expresses an order like the Jussive but it diﬀers from the Jussive in that the person being ordered is the addressee.

253

SUBJECT AFFIXES Table 8.3. Alternation in the second person preﬁx (15)

Aﬃrmative Indicative

Past tG-k6ft ba(n6) Present tG-k6ft Future tG-k6ftG-te

Negative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

tG-kGft ba(n6) Ø-kGft tG-kGftG-w6

b-a-t-k6ft a-t-k6ft a-t-k6ft

b-a-t-k6ft a-t-kGft a-t-k6ft

The Ø- preﬁx can be derived by a rule of t- deletion, as in (16). Given that the 3  preﬁx t- does not delete in this context we need to restrict application of the rule only to the second person (this is done by adding a subscript 2 to the input). (16)

Second person t- deletion in the Present Subjunctive (= Jussive)  _____  t-2 → Ø- / #  +Subjunctive   +Present 

The preﬁx t- here parallels the English do in that it is required in the negative imperative such as do not open! while it is absent in the aﬃrmative imperative open! (See Halefom 1994 for a diﬀerent view on this.) 8.3.3 The yG- vs. y6- alternation In (17), the preﬁxal y is followed by 6 if the verb is in the Aﬃrmative of the Subjunctive Present whereas y is followed by G in the other Aﬃrmative forms. No vowel follows y in the Negative but the sequence a-y- fuses and realizes as [e]. Table 8.4. Alternation in the elsewhere preﬁx (17)

Aﬃrmative Indicative

Past yG-k6ft ba(n6) Present yG-k6ft Future yG-k6ftG-te

Negative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

yG-kGft ba(n6) y6-kGft yG-kGftG-w6

b-a-y-k6ft a-y-k6ft a-y-k6ft

b-a-y-k6ft a-y-kGft a-y-k6ft

Note that y6- is used where the second person is Ø- while yG- is used where the second person is t-. So the y6-/yG- alternation can be accounted for by postulating a rule of 6 insertion, given in (18), which applies in the context where the second person t- deletes. (See Leslau 1992: 286 and Rose 1995: 278 for similar observations with diﬀerent analyses.)

254

SOUND MUTATIONS

(18)

6-Insertion in the Present Subjunctive (= Jussive)  _____  y- → y6- / #  +Subjunctive   +Present 

8.3.4 The yG- vs. y6-/Ø- alternation in the impersonal The impersonal has an optional preﬁx y6- in the Aﬃrmative of the Present Subjunctive, i.e. y6-kGf wc-i and kGf wc-i are in free variation. In all other cases, the presence of y- is obligatory, cf. i.e. yG-k6f wc-i but not *k6f wc-i. Table 8.5. The optionality of y6- in the impersonal Subjunctive Present13 (19)

Aﬃrmative Indicative w

Negative

Subjunctive w

Past yG-k6f c-i ba(n6) yG-kGf c-i ba(n6) Present yG-k6f wc-i y6-kGf wc-i/kGf wc-i Future yG-k6f wc-i-te yG-kGf wc-i-w6

Indicative w

b-a-y-k6f c-i a-y-k6f wc-i a-y-k6f wc-i

Subjunctive b-a-y-k6f wc-i a-y-kGf wc-i a-y-k6f wc-i

The alternation in (19) can be expressed as in (20), where the subscript I in the input indicates that deletion applies only in the impersonal and the parentheses indicate that deletion is optional. (20)

The allomorphs y6-/Ø- and yG- in the impersonal  ____  y-I (→) Ø- / #  +Subjunctive   +Present 

Given the rule in (18), if y does not delete it will be followed by 6. In having Øpreﬁx, as in kGf wc-i, the impersonal is similar to the second persons. On the other hand, the yG-/y6- alternation in (19) parallels the Elsewhere preﬁxes yG-/y6-. The alternations discussed in §8.3 can be summarized as follows. (21)

Readjustments in the Present Subjunctive (= Jussive) a. t-2 (→) Ø-    ____   b. y- (→) y6-  / #  +Subjunctive    +Present  c. y-I (→) Ø- 

13. The suﬃx -i here is the accusative marker but it is required unless the impersonal verb is the nonﬁnal conjunct of a converb construction. The -i is found also with intransitive verbs, e.g. mw6c-im ‘one died’.

SUBJECT AFFIXES

d.

6- → N- /

  

a. b.

255

 [+Subjunctive, +Present]  # … ___ (i.e. word-medially) 

I conclude that these alternations are related because they are all determined by the feature speciﬁcations [Subjunctive, Present] and whether the preﬁx is wordinitial or not. The rules in (21a–c) apply when the conjunctive context Present Subjunctive and word-initial holds. The rule in (21d) applies when the disjunctive context Present Subjunctive or word-medial holds. Recall that I posited the items in (4) as the only underlying Q1 preﬁxes. In this section I have derived each preﬁx’s allomorph by a rule. For example, the t-/Ø- alternation is accounted for by positing t- and a rule of deletion (21a). Similarly, the yG-/y6- alternation is accounted for by postulating an underlying yand the rule (21b). A similar rule optionally deletes y in the impersonal in (21c). In the same manner, 6-/N- alternation is seen as 6 becoming N, (21d). While the homogeneity of the contexts in (21) may favor the present analysis it is also possible to posit each alternating form as an underlying form. Whether my analysis or positing each of the alternating forms as underlying is a better analysis remains an open question.

8.4

Alternating suﬃxes

Suﬃxes containing nonﬂoating features have two alternating forms, such as -x6/ -x in the second person, -xw/-x in the 1, -n6/-ne in the 1 and so on. This section describes these alternations and attempts to account for them. 8.4.1 Readjustments before clitics (-xw/-x, -c(6)/-c and -n6/-ne) Some subject suﬃxes have two alternating forms depending on whether there is a following clitic (i.e. Case + object suﬃx) or not. For instance, the 1 is -xw when it is not followed by a clitic whereas it is -x (hence there is delabialization) when it is followed by a clitic, cf. (22a) vs. (22b). (This hitherto unidentiﬁed alternation has been a source of misconceptions discussed in Appendix 7). (22)

Readjustments before a clitic: -xw/-x a. Without a clitic k6f6t-xwG-m ‘I have opened .’ b. With a clitic k6f6t-xG-r-a-m ‘I have opened (it) for her.’

256

SOUND MUTATIONS

The 1 suﬃx is -n6 when it is not followed by a clitic whereas it is -ne (hence there is fronting of 6 to e) when it is followed by a clitic, cf. (23a) vs. (23b). (23)

Readjustments before a clitic: -n6/-ne a. Without a clitic k6f6t-n6-m ‘We have opened .’ b. With a clitic k6f6t-ne-r-a-m ‘We have opened (it) for her.’

Apart from these, the 3  suﬃx is -c when it is not followed by a clitic whereas it is -c(6) (with an optional 6) when it is followed by a clitic, cf. (24a) vs. (24b). So [−c] and [−c6] are in free variation before a clitic. (24)

Readjustments before a clitic: -c/-c(6) a. Without a clitic k6f6t6-cG-m ‘She has opened .’ b. With a clitic k6f6t6-c(6)-r-a-m ‘She has opened (it) for her.’14

In my view, these readjustments have an underlying motivation related to the choice of the Light or Heavy clitics. Each object clitic in Chaha has two allomorphs known as Light and Heavy. For example, the clitic -ö-o ‘to their detriment’ in (25a) is Light; the ö here is not a geminate. On the other hand, the clitic -p-o ‘to their detriment’ in (25b) is Heavy; the p here is a simpliﬁed underlying geminate (see §9.4 for details). Recall that Q1 suﬃxes are adjacent to the stem but not to object clitics because Q2 suﬃxes intervene. On the other hand, Q2 suﬃxes are the ﬁnal elements of the subject inﬂexion, hence adjacent to object clitics but not to the stem. Note also that -xU is a Q1 suﬃx while -n6I is a Q2 suﬃx, as shown in (25). (25)

a.

k6f6t-xU-Ø-ö-o-m = [k6f6txGöom] open-1-1-detriment-3 -past ‘I have opened it to their () detriment.’

14. When both the direct and indirect objects of a verb are deﬁnite the verb agrees with either objects — not both — depending on the speaker’s intention, e.g. y6-c’amut dengya-çta t’6ö6t’-x-r-a-m ‘I held (= babysitting) c’amut’s children for her’ or y6-c’amut dengya-çta t’6ö6t’-x-n-o-m ‘I held c’amut’s children’. Accordingly, the parenthesized direct object it of (22b), (23b) and (24b) is only implicit in the Chaha examples.

SUBJECT AFFIXES

b.

257

k6f6t-Ø-n6I-p-o-m = [k6f6tnepom] open-1-1-detriment-3 -past ‘We have opened it to their () detriment.’

For a clitic to be Heavy the trigger of heaviness should always be there, i.e. a clitic should be consistently Heavy or Light for a given subject. However, the Q1 suﬃx -xw could not be present in the Imperfective and Jussive — given its variability. So it cannot license a Heavy clitic (for if it does it in the Perfective it cannot do it in other aspects). This leads to generalization (26a). In addition, I assume that /U/ and /I/ trigger gemination of a following consonant, (26b). But, the /U/ of (25a) cannot be found in Nonperfective aspects, so it should not trigger gemination for if it does, that will create inconsistency. Due to this, the Q1 suﬃx -xw deletes its ﬁnal vocoid before a clitic (for the clitic to be Light), (26c). But the /I/ of (25b) is found in all aspects and Q2 suﬃxes should be followed by Heavy clitics, (26a), so the /I/ triggers gemination of the following /ö/ to [p]. (26)

a. b. c.

Only invariable (or Q2) aﬃxes license Heavy object clitics. The ﬁnal-vocoid /I, U, A/ of a suﬃx triggers heaviness. Variable (or Q1) suﬃxes avoid their ﬁnal-vocoids before object clitics.

The diﬀerent nature of the clitics in (25) emerges from the claim that the preceding vocoids belong to two diﬀerent sets of suﬃxes. Clitics are in complementary distribution with the vocoids of Q1 suﬃxes whereas they force the realization of vocoids in Q2 suﬃxes. This constitutes one argument to analyze variable and invariable suﬃxes as diﬀerent sets. In analyses where -xw and -n6 belong to the same set there is no principled explanation for the delabialization of -xw and fronting of e before clitics. However, the present analysis attributes the contrast to a diﬀerence in their respective sets. When followed by a clitic, -cG is in free variation with -c6, i.e. there is an optional 6 following c. This 6 is illicit in the absence of a following clitic, cf. *k6f6t6-c6-m, i.e. its presence is concomitant with clitics and it is optional even in the presence of a following clitic. The insertion of 6 is a strategy used to separate the ﬁnal /I/ of the Q1 suﬃx [−c] (/-ttI/) so that it will not be followed by a Heavy clitic. 8.4.2 Readjustment after the second person /-x6/ (-x6/-x, -o/-u and -6ma/-ma) The Perfective Q1 suﬃx for the second person is -x6 if it is followed by the null Q2, (27a), but it is -x if it is followed by a nonnull Q2 suﬃx, (27b). In addition, the Q2 plural masculine is [−u] in the Perfective while it is [−o] in the Imperfective.

258

SOUND MUTATIONS

Similarly, the Q2 plural feminine is [−Gma] in the Perfective while it is [−6ma] i n the Imperfective. So we have the alternations -x6/-x in the Perfective, -u/-o in the plural masculine and -Gma/-6ma in the plural feminine. (27) a. b.

Perfective you ( ) you ( ) you ( ) you ( )

Imperfective k6f6t-x6-Ø-m = [k6f6tx6m] k6f6t-x-I-m = [k6f6tçGm] k6f6t-x-u-m k6f6t-x-Gma-m

tG-k6ft-Ø tG-k6ft-I = [tGk6fc] tG-k6ft-o tG-k6ft-6ma

I assume that the second person is /-x6/, the plural masculine is /-o/ and the plural feminine is /-6ma/. Note that /-x6/ is followed by a vowel-initial Q2 in all instances of (27b). My analysis will be that the vowel /6/ of /-x6/ deletes due to vowel hiatus. (28)

6-Deletion:

6 → Ø / ____ + V (= vowel)

The rule of 6-Deletion in (28) is further justiﬁed by the fact that no 6 is found before a vowel. The only thing to note about 6-Deletion is that it applies even before the epenthetic [G], e.g. b6-Gsat → bGsat (not *b6sat) ‘on ﬁre’. Note further that the initial vowels of the Q2 plural suﬃxes (-o and -6ma) are mid in the Imperfective but high in the Perfective. In other words, these vowels raise when preceded by the phonetically realized Q1 suﬃx -x yielding -xu and -x-Gma. This can be capture by a Raising rule (29). (29)

V-Raising:

V → [+high] / nonnull Q1 + ____

The derivation of [−xGma] requires 6-Deletion and V-Raising without intrinsic ordering in the application of the rules. However, it should be noted that the raised /6/ (i.e. [G]) deletes if it is preceded by an open syllable, as in f6ta-x-ma-m ‘you ( ) have untied ’ (to be compared with k6f6t-x-Gma-m, from (27b)).

8.5

Conclusion

This chapter develops an idea that the Perfective suﬃxes of Chaha (and Semitic by extension) should be analyzed as belonging to two diﬀerent sets. It shows that such an analysis oﬀers a natural account for the otherwise unexplained irregularities in subject aﬃxes. Its basic hypothesis is that whether an aﬃx is variable or invariable should not be an idiosyncratic character of each aﬃx. Rather, variability is the characteristic common to a position occupied by that

SUBJECT AFFIXES

259

aﬃx, so the variability of -xw and the invariability of -n6 is determined by their membership to the respective sets Q1 and Q2. In this account, -xw is variable because it is Q1 (whose linear order and phonological content is aspect dependent) while -n6 is invariable because it is Q2 (whose linear order and phonological content is independent of aspect). Moreover, given that the Q1 aﬃxes express not only the phi features of the subject but also aspect it is mandatory that they should be speciﬁed as subject plus aspect whereas such speciﬁcation cannot be made for Q2 suﬃxes. It then follows that the Q1 vs. Q2 distinction cannot be dispensed with. The proposed dichotomy not only explains the alternations of subject aﬃxes, it also plays a role in accounting for the Light-Heavy allomorphy of object clitics. We are now in a position to oﬀer the criteria summarized in Table 8.6, which allows us to predict whether a suﬃx is Q1 or Q2. Table 8.6. Criteria for distinguishing Q1 from Q2 (30) Q1 aﬃxes

Q2 suﬃxes

a.

Are variable (preﬁx or suﬃx, e.g. tGvs. -c)

Are invariable (suﬃx only, e.g. -6ma)

b.

Are followed by Light clitics (e.g. by -ö-a)

Are followed by Heavy clitics (e.g. by -p-a)

c.

Avoid their vocoid before a clitic (e.g. -x-ö-a and not *xw-ö-a)

Utilize their vocoid before a clitic (e.g. -ne-p-a and not *-n6-p-a)

The second and third criteria will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. It will be shown that the Q1 vs. Q2 distinction is also needed to explain why some subject suﬃxes block 3  object labialization whereas others do not. We will see that the Q2 suﬃxes, and only them, introduce a Dorsal node in a following object clitic. The ﬁnal chapter will attempt to explain this asymmetry.

C 9 Object Clitics

9.1

Introduction

In this chapter I investigate object clitics and their interaction with subject suﬃxes. (See, among others, Polotsky 1938, Goldenberg 1968, and Hetzron 1968 on this issue.) In §9.2 I distinguish Case-marking suﬃxes from object pronouns. I propose that all Chaha object clitics consist of a Case marker (the ﬁrst suﬃx of each pair in Table 9.1) and a following object pronoun (the second suﬃx). I identify three distinct Case markers and account for their phonetic absence in some forms. The main purpose of this chapter will be to account for the alternations found in this table. The suﬃxes are extracted from the conjugation of the verb k6f6t ‘has opened’ given in Appendix 9. In §9.3 I present some arguments showing that each pair of suﬃxes in the table is a clitic. In §9.4 I discuss the role of subject suﬃxes on the clitic alternations and show how this support the claim in §7.2.2 that ﬂoating features leave their articulators and organizing nodes behind. In §9.5 I give some arguments based on clitic alternations supporting the proposal that variable subject suﬃxes (labeled Q1 in Chapter 8) hold a syntactic position independent from the one held by invariable suﬃxes (labeled Q2), hence Q1 is not adjacent to clitics (because Q2 intervenes). I will argue that due to the absence of adjacency, phonetically realized Q1 suﬃxes cannot make a following clitic Heavy. As noted in note 14 of chapter 8, a given verb can take only one type of object (i.e. one of the pairs of Table 9.1) at a time. Accordingly, when the verb agrees with the indirect object, as in (2a, b) below, the direct object is unmarked so it can be singular or plural and masculine or feminine. (Note also that the epenthetic [G] is omitted from the Table.)

262

SOUND MUTATIONS

Table 9.1. Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha1 

(1)





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-nd62

(-n-a)x63 (-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 ()

9.2

Distinguishing Case from pronoun

9.2.1 The three sets of Case markers As stated in Polotsky (1938), Leslau (1950), Goldenberg (1968), Hetzron (1971) and Ford (1991), some object pronouns are separated from the inﬂected verb by a Case marker. This is illustrated in (2), where the 3  object -o is separated from the verb stem r6x (from the root –rAx) by [−r] (2a) or [−ö] (2b). (2)

a. b. c.

yG-r6x-r-o ‘He sends () for them ().’ yG-r6x-ö-o ‘He sends () to their () detriment.’ yG-r6x-n-o ‘He sends them ().’ subject + verb + Case + object pronoun

The [−r] in (2a) expresses doing the action denoted by the verb for (the beneﬁt of) the object pronoun. Hence, it is called benefactive Case marker (hereafter ). On the other hand, [−ö] in (2b) conveys the idea of doing the action

1. Every [p] in the table is in free variation with [k]. /U/ (i.e. its feature [round]) moves leftward and labializes the nearest preceding target. But labialization cannot aﬀect a segment preceding the Case suﬃx in the Heavy alternant. 2. The  -nd6 does not vary. It triggers deletion of a preceding  /-r/. Its nd cluster is never broken up by an epenthetic vowel. 3. See §9.4.6 concerning the advent of (-n-a). In its absence, there is the  -Ø.

OBJECT CLITICS

263

expressed by the verb to the detriment of the object pronoun or using the object as an instrument to do the action. Hence, it is called malefactive/instrumental Case marker (hereafter ). The combination of a Case marker and an object pronoun which I call “clitic” has received diﬀerent denominations by diﬀerent authors: “prepositions” by Leslau (1950: 19), “mediate suﬃxes” by Polotsky (1951: 29) and Goldenberg (1968: 81), “n- and b-suﬃxes” by Hetzron (1977: 60) and “benefactive and adverse complement suﬃxes” by Ford (1991: 284–5). There is also a third type of object pronoun: -n-o, exempliﬁed in (2c). This is known as the accusative/dative object pronoun.4 Polotsky (1938: 160), Hetzron (1969: 108) and Goldenberg (1968: 83) analyze the accusative/dative object pronoun as attaching to the inﬂected verb without any intermediate suﬃx between the two. Their claim that the accusative/dative object pronouns are adjacent to the inﬂected verb originates from the absence of an intermediate phonetic suﬃx before the consonant-initial second person pronouns. This is exempliﬁed in (3c), where the object pronoun -x6 ‘you ( )’ attaches directly to the inﬂected verb. (Note that [n] in (3a) is a nasalized /r/, see §9.4.8). (3)

a. b. c.

yG-r6xG-n-x6 → [yGr6xGnx6] ‘He sends () for you ( ).’ yG-r6xG-ö-x6 → [yGr6xGöx6] ‘He sends () to your ( ) ’ yG-r6x-?-x6 → [yGr6xx6] ‘He sends you ( ).’

If we assume that the stem r6x and the pronoun -o in yG-r6x-n-o ‘he sends them ()’ in (2c) are underlyingly adjacent, the presence of [n] remains unexplained. On the other hand, if we assume an intermediate Case suﬃx between the stem r6x and the pronoun -x6 in (3c), we must account for the absence in the phonetic form of the proposed intermediate suﬃx. I will argue in the paragraphs to follow that -x6 ‘you ( )’ in (3c) is exactly like -n-x6 ‘for you ( )’ and -ö-x6 ‘for your ( ) detriment’ in that it is preceded by a Case marker. The phonological content of the Case marker in (3c) is an open question for now, hence the question mark.

4. The indirect object of verbs such as hand and receive ends like (2c), in which case the object is ambiguous (accusative or dative), e.g. y-a-k’y6pGn-n-o ‘he hands () to them ()’ (from -k’y6pGr-) or ‘he hands them () (to someone, e.g. the enemy)’ and yG-t-k’y6p6n-n-o ‘he receives () from them’ or ‘he receives them’ (where the nouns in parentheses are implicit). So -n-o is accusative/dative.

264

SOUND MUTATIONS

9.2.2 [n] as part of the third person object pronouns For all the aforementioned authors the [n] in yG-r6x-n-o ‘he sends them ()’, (2c), is part of the third person object pronoun. In other words, while these authors analyze the [r] and the [ö] of -r-o and -ö-o in (2) as intermediate suﬃxes, they consider the [n] of [no] as part of the 3  object pronoun, i.e. -no, not -n-o. Such analyses are problematic for the simple reason that [n] does not occur in -r-o and -ö-o despite the fact that these forms display the 3  pronoun. The presence of [n] only in -no makes it impossible to give a single representation for the 3  pronoun in the three sets of (2). I therefore propose that the [−n] in -n-o is not part of the object pronoun. It is a Case marker parallel to [−r] in -r-o and [−ö] in -ö-o. According to the previous analyses, -r-o and -ö-o are divisible. This implies that the two forms are related since both have the suﬃx -o in common. Yet, -no is indivisible and has no suﬃx in common with -r-o and -ö-o, entailing that -no is phonologically unrelated with them. By contrast, in my proposal, [−r], [−ö] and [−n] in (2) have the same status. They are all Case suﬃxes. In addition, the three sets -r-o, -ö-o and -n-o include four suﬃxes (-r, -ö, -n and -o) with only -o being common to the three sets. Hence, the problem of phonological relatedness does not arise in my analysis. The sets -r-o, -ö-o and -n-o exemplify what I call clitics. 9.2.3 An n-insertion analysis The assumption that accusative object pronouns are adjacent to the verb cannot explain the presence of [n] before the second person pronouns in forms such as (4c). (As has been done in the previous chapters, a ﬁnal -m of the Perfective is omitted.) (4)

a. b. c.

nax6-n-x6 ‘He has sent () for you ( ).’ nax6-ö-x6 ‘He has sent () to your ( ) ’ nax6-n-ax6, *nax6-ax6 ‘He has sent you ( ).’

An alternative way to solve this inconsistency would be to introduce the [n] in (4c) by some insertion rule. In fact, Hetzron (1969: 108) suggests that the [n] in (4c) is a secondary development created by the analogy of the third person such as yG-r6x-n-o ‘he sends them ()’. However, I presented arguments in §9.2.2 that [n] in yG-r6x-n-o is better analyzed as a Case marker than as third person. So, [n] in (4c) is expected because all vocoid-initial object pronouns are preceded by the accusative/dative marker [−n], as in (2c) and (4c). Rather, I contend that what needs to be explained is the absence of [n] in (3c) and not its presence in (4c).

OBJECT CLITICS

265

9.2.4 -Ø as an accusative/dative suﬃx Instead of assuming the [n] to be part of the third person object pronouns in examples such as yG-r6x-no (my yG-r6x-n-o) ‘he sends them ()’ in (2c) or inserting an [n] by rule in nax6-n-ax6 ‘he has sent you ( )’ in (4c), I propose that [−n] in (2c) and (4c) is an accusative/dative Case marker (hereafter ). I also assume that the  is present also in yG-r6x-Ø-x6 ‘he sends you ( )’ in (3c) but here the suﬃx is -Ø. The -Ø is used before consonants while [−n] is used before vocoids. The  [−n] also alternates with [−y] but this will be discussed in §9.4.4. The three sets of pronouns in the accusative, i.e. (2c), (3c) and (4c), repeated in (5), are now uniﬁed in that all are preceded by the  suﬃx but the phonological content of the suﬃx varies depending on what follows. (5)

a. b. c.

yG-r6x-n-o nax6-n-ax6 yG-r6x-Ø-x6

‘He sends them ()’. (from (2c)) ‘He has sent you ( )’. (from (4c)) ‘He sends you ( )’. (from (3c))

The third person suﬃxes such as -o, (5a), and the second person semi-dependent5 pronouns such as -ax6, (5b), are vocoid-initial so they are preceded by the  [−n]. The second person dependent pronouns such as -x6, (5c), are consonant-initial so they are preceded by the  -Ø. My analysis uniﬁes not only the accusative object pronouns given in (5) but also the three sets of clitics exempliﬁed in (3), repeated as (6), in that each of them has a Case marker (/-r/, /-ö/ or -Ø) followed by an object pronoun. (6)

a. b. c.

yG-r6xG-n-x6 → [yGr6xGnx6] ‘He sends () for you ( ).’ yG-r6xG-ö-x6 → [yGr6xGöx6] ‘He sends () to your ’ yG-r6x-Ø-x6 → [yGr6xx6] ‘He sends you ( ).’

I therefore agree with Hetzron (1977: 60) and all the aforementioned authors that there are three sets of Case markers preceding the object pronouns. I also agree with them that the accusative object pronoun -x6 in yG-r6x-x6 ‘he sends you ( )’ in (5c) is not preceded by a phonetically realized suﬃx. However, I diﬀer from them in analyzing the [n] in examples such as yG-r6x-n-o ‘he sends them ()’ as a Case marker. I do not analyze it as part of the object pronoun.

5. I call the second person pronominal suﬃxes such as -ax6, (5b), semi-dependent because they also are the independent pronouns, cf. ax6 ‘you ( )’, aç ‘you ( )’, axu ‘you ( )’, axma ‘you ( )’. See §9.4.6 concerning the use of these semi-dependent pronouns as pronominal suﬃxes.

266

SOUND MUTATIONS

I also postulate a zero  suﬃx in (6c). Accordingly, there is no  suﬃx for them whereas, for me, -Ø and -n are just two diﬀerent realizations of  used respectively before consonant-initial and vowel-initial object pronouns.

9.3

The clitic nature of object suﬃxes

Object agreements, as in the French past participle, do not require that the object be deﬁnite, as the italicized indeﬁnite nouns of (7a, b) trigger object agreement. (7)

a. b.

une personne qu’on n’a jamais comprise a person that one never understood des livres que j’ai lus books that I read

The antecedents of the agreement markers e in (7a) and s in (7b) are not deﬁnite. However, object clitics in French require that the object be deﬁnite in order to agree with it in number and gender. When the object is indeﬁnite the clitic is en regardless of the number and gender contrasts of the object, as in (8a). But French object clitics contrast for number and gender if they are deﬁnite, as in (8b). (8)

a.

b.

j’en ai acheté une I (of it) bought one ‘I bought one’ je l’ai achetée I it bought ‘I bought it’

vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs.

j’en ai acheté cinq I (of them) bought ﬁve ‘I bought ﬁve’ je les ai achetés I them bought ‘I bought them’

In Chaha, if the direct object is indeﬁnite there can be no object suﬃx, as in (9a) vs. (9b). It follows that all direct object suﬃxes are deﬁnite.6 (9)

a.

Gxa s6c’6-xwG-m water drink-1-past ‘I have drunk some water.’

6. This observation holds also for other Ethiopian Semitic languages. For instance, in Amharic, the 3  object suﬃx -t is prohibited if the object is indeﬁnite, e.g. wGha t’6t’t’a-hu ‘I have drunk some water’ vs. *wGha t’6t’t’a-hu-t. However, there are some implicitly deﬁnite direct objects that do not require the deﬁnite article to convey a deﬁnite interpretation and trigger object agreement. For example, in tGk6 as6r6-c-nG-m (baby carry on back-she-it-past) ‘she carried the baby on her back’, the object tGk6 is deﬁnite but only implicitly — there is normally one baby in a household.

OBJECT CLITICS

267

b. *Gxa s6c’6-x-n-U-m water drink-1--3 -past c. Gxa xwGta s6c’6-x-n-U-m (= [s6c’6xwnGm])7 water the ( ) drink-1--3 -past ‘I have drunk the water.’ Deﬁniteness is required by clitics but not by objects agreements. This categorizes the object suﬃxes of Chaha (and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages) with the French object clitics and not with the French past participle object agreements. Object suﬃxes in Ethiopian Semitic languages are preceded by Case markers. For instance, as we have seen in §9.2, Chaha has three sets of Case markers preceding the object pronouns. This fact parallels the accusative and dative contrasts that we see in French object clitics such as le and lui. The French clitic le is accusative the way the Chaha clitic -ö-a is benefactive and so on. Finally, French past participle agreement holds between a verb and an accusative object, as in (10a), so a dative object cannot agree with the verb, cf. (10b). (10)

a.

la pomme que je vous ai donnée the apple that I you gave ‘The apple that I gave you’ b. *la pomme que je vous ai donnés

But object suﬃxes of Ethiopian Semitic languages are not limited to accusative objects. As can be seen from the Amharic example in (11a), in the presence of both accusative and dative objects, the suﬃx on the verb is the dative and not the accusative, cf. (11b). (11)

a.

l-anci y6-s6t’t’6-xu-w m6s’haf-occ for-you ( ) that-give-1-you ( ) books ( ) ‘the books that I gave you ( )’ b. *l-anci y6-s6t’t’6-xu-acc6w m6s’haf-occ for-you ( ) that-give-1-them ( ) books ( )

The dative object -w in (11a) is diﬀerent from French object agreement (since French has no agreement with dative objects), but it is similar to French dative clitics. Based on these observations and the arguments given in Mullen (1986: 327–32), I assume that the combination of Case and pronoun suﬃxes is

7. See §7.8, Appendix 7, and §9.4.7 for discussions on the phonetic realization of the 3  suﬃx /-U/, and §8.2 for analyzing the 1 subject in (9c) as /-x/ — not /-xU/.

268

SOUND MUTATIONS

a clitic, and not an object agreement marker. The clitics consist of an object pronoun preceded by a Case marker. In this account, Case markers are preﬁxed to the pronoun inside the clitic whereas the clitic is suﬃxed to the verbal complex [[[verb] Q1] Q2] (see Chapter 8 on Q1 and Q2). The clitic, i.e. the complex [Case + pronoun], is right-adjoined to this complex, a head which copies the morphosyntactic feature values of its subject through -Head agreement. I therefore assume (12) to be the basic structure of a sentence in Chaha where T = tense, V = verb, Q1 & Q2 = subject agreement.

TP

(12)

Spec

T VP

T -m

V Lexical subjecti Lexical [[[V] Q1] Q2]i objectj [[[V] Q1] Q2]i clitic Case object pronounj k6f6t -xG -ma -r -a k6f6t -xG -ma -r -a -m open -2 -  -for -3  -past ‘You ( ) have opened (it) for her.’ The verb in (12) has the aspectual speciﬁcation [+Perfective], which is expressed by the [6] found between the last two root consonants (f and t). This speciﬁcation conditions the phonological content and linear order of Q1 (which in this case is a suﬃx /-x/). Q2 is insensitive to the aspect of the verb. Now we will discuss the phonological alternations found in the clitics.

9.4

Light-Heavy Alternation (LHA) of clitics as subject-clitic interaction

Each clitic in Chaha has Light/Heavy alternants, e.g. -ö-a/-p-a ‘to her detriment’, known as Light-Heavy Alternation (hereafter ). The  manifests itself either on the Case markers as in -ö-a/-p-a or the pronouns, e.g. -ö-x6/-ö-k6 ‘to your (sg.m) detriment’ — but not both. The Light and Heavy alternants have no

269

OBJECT CLITICS

semantic diﬀerence. Table 9.2 summarizes where the Light and Heavy alternants are found. Table 9.2. Q2 subject suﬃxes and the following clitic8 (13) Nature of Q2 subject suﬃxes

Nature of the following clitic

a.

Null Q2 (= -Ø) 1, 2 , 3 , 3 

Light

b.

Nonnull (phonetically realized) Q2 1 /-n6I/ 2  /-I/ impersonal /-U/   /-6öU/   /-6m6A/

Heavy

As shown in Table 9.1, the null-Q2 suﬃxes are followed by Light clitics. On the other hand, all nonnull-Q2 suﬃxes in (13b)) end with one of the vocoids /I, U, A/ and the clitics that follow them are Heavy. The content of Q2 suﬃxes is the only conditioning factor for . Aspect has no role in conditioning . If, for instance, the 1 subject is followed by Heavy clitics in the Perfective it will also be followed by Heavy clitics in the Imperfective and Jussive. 9.4.1 A proposal for the LHA I propose that both Light and Heavy clitics derive from a unique underlying form and that what distinguishes them is the fact that the Heavy ones are preceded by the ﬁnal vocoids /I, U, A/ of the nonnull-Q2 suﬃxes. These vocoids have the respective salient terminal features [−back], [high] and [low], which are dominated by their articulator node Dorsal. (As we saw in Chapter 7, /U/ also has [round] under Labial but this is not relevant here.) The vocoids have also a skeletal slot X. In addition, as proposed in §7.2.2, [−back] and [high] dissociate from Dorsal (due to decomposition) and they ﬂoat to dock on a preceding target, leaving their Dorsal X behind. I also assume that [a] in [6ma] derives from /6A/ and that /A/ also has a Dorsal X dominating [low]. Here, too, [low] abandons its Dorsal and docks on the preceding /6/, changing it to [a]. Thus, leaving the [round] Labial of /U/ aside, the ﬁnal vocoids /I, U, A/ of the nonnull-Q2 suﬃxes

8. Phonetically, /-I/ palatalizes and /-U/ labializes and palatalizes a preceding target (§7.2.2). /-n6I/ surfaces as [−n6] or [−ne], /-6öU/ as [−o] or [−u], and /-6m6A/ as [−6ma] or [−ma] (see §8.4).

270

SOUND MUTATIONS

have the representations shown in (14), where the dissociated terminal features will dock on their preceding targets. (See Chapter 6 for a claim that both Lingual and Peripheral dominate Dorsal.) (14)

a.

/I/ X | Root | Place | Lingual/Peripheral | Dorsal [−back]

b.

/U/ c. /A/ X X | | Root Root | | Place Place | | Lingual/Peripheral Lingual/Peripheral | | Dorsal Dorsal [high]

[low]

My claim is that the common Dorsal X slot of these vocoids is what triggers gemination in Heavy clitics. The Dorsal articulator also has the characteristics of blocking a ﬂoating feature [round] and velarizing /ö/ to [k]. Thus, blocking and velarization are triggered by the Dorsal and gemination by its X slot. The Dorsal X also triggers the [−n] vs. [−y] alternation of the . The following sections present all identiﬁable ’s and show how the alternations support the proposal. 9.4.2

LHA

as simplex vs. geminate alternation

When a pronominal suﬃx is velar-initial, as are the ﬁnal suﬃxes in (15), the velar exhibits , i.e. the velar is a spirant [x] (or its palatalized form [ç]) in (15a) whereas it is a stop [k] (or [ky]) in (15b). While all the examples below are malefactive this generalization holds also for the accusative, e.g. yG-r6x-x6/yG-r6xo-k6 ‘he/they send(s) you ( )’, and benefactive, e.g. yG-r6xG-n-x6/yG-r6x-on-k6 ‘he/they send(s) () for you ( )’. (The ↑↑ in the last Heavy example indicates the original site of /U/, i.e. impersonal labialization and palatalization, as in yG-k6f wcGökGma ‘one opens () to your ( ) detriment’.) (15)

 when the object is velar-initial a. Light b. Heavy 6-r6xG-Ø-ö-xu nG-r6x-ne-ö-ku ‘I/We send () to your ( ) ’ yG-r6xG-Ø-ö-x6 yG-r6x-o-ö-k6 ‘He/They () send(s) to your ( ) ’

OBJECT CLITICS

271

tG-r6xG-Ø-ö-ç yG-r6x-6ma-ö-ky ‘she/they () send(s) () to your ( ) ’ yG-r6xG-Ø-ö-xGma yG-r6xwG-↑↑-ö-kGma ‘He/One sends () to your ( ) ’ As discussed in Chapter 3, when [x] alternates with [k], [k] is the geminated and simpliﬁed form of /x/, e.g. y6-sx6r ‘let him get drunk!’ vs. s6k6r6-m ‘he has got drunk’. Accordingly,  is a simplex vs. geminate consonant alternation. The clitic which contains the underlying spirant is called Light while the one which contains the derived stop is called Heavy by Polotsky (1951: 29) and his successors. Notice that the Light clitics in (15a) are preceded by the null-Q2 suﬃx whereas the Heavy clitics in (15b) are preceded by the ﬁnal vocoids /I, U, A/ of the nonnull-Q2 suﬃxes. The Labial of the  /-ö/ and the following /x/ are each linked to their own X slot in the Light allomorph (15a). There is no other slot for any of them to be doubly linked, so the underlying /ö/ and /x/ remain unchanged. This results in the Light clitic and does not require an explanation, i.e. the Light clitic corresponds to the underlying form of the clitic. What should be explained is the [k] in the Heavy clitics of (15b). Previous analyses, as well as mine, accept that the ﬁnal vocoids of the subject suﬃxes in (15b) are responsible for the geminate (/xx/ → [k]). But notice that the vocoids and [k] in (15b) are not adjacent ([ö] intervenes). If we accept that the vocoids trigger gemination it is the adjacent /ö/, and not the distant /x/, which is expected to geminate. But this expectation is not met because it is impossible to geminate the /ö/ and to leave the /x/ ungeminated, cf. nG-r6x-ne-ö-ku, from (15b), vs. *nG-r6x-ne-p-xu. So the ﬁrst problem that needs to be explained is the mismatch between the trigger and target of gemination in (15b) unless, of course, we want to abandon the generalization that the ﬁnal vocoids of the subject suﬃxes, given in (14), trigger gemination. That these vocoids are the trigger of gemination is an unavoidable generalization, I believe. So the mismatch has to be accounted for. Notice that the vocoids and velar-initial object suﬃxes have the common articulator Dorsal, which ﬂanks the Labial articulator of the  suﬃx, as shown in (16a). My suggestion will be that the two Dorsal nodes (and what dominates them) of (16a) fuse, presumably due to . Given this fusion the Labial of  must either precede or follow the fused node. Accordingly, the Dorsal-Labial-Dorsal sequence of (16a) changes to the Labial-Dorsal sequence of (16b). (I assume a feature geometry in which Dorsal is dominated by both Lingual and Peripheral but Lingual is omitted for simplicity as it is irrelevant to the discussion.)

272

SOUND MUTATIONS

(16)

Dorsal Fusion a. /I, U, A/ +  /-ö/ + /x/ X X X

b. →

Dorsals fused X X

X

Root

Root

Root

Root

Root

Place

Place

Place

Place

Place

Peripheral

Peripheral

Peripheral

Peripheral

Peripheral

Labial Dorsal

Labial Dorsal

Dorsal

[+back]

[+back]

The Root of the fused Dorsals is linked to the X slot of a vocoid and of /x/, which gives rise to gemination, as in (16b). It eventually simpliﬁes, i.e. /xx/ → [k]. The omitted terminal features of the ﬁnal vocoids /I, U, A/ are autonomous and they dock on a preceding target (see Chapter 7). This results, for instance, in the vowels [e, o, a] or complex consonant [xw] of (15b). Dorsal Fusion, (16), applies also when a Case suﬃx is found between the ﬁrst person singular Q1-suﬃx /x/ and x-initial object suﬃxes, (17). (17)

Dorsal Fusion between x-ﬁnal Q1 and x-initial object k6f6t-x-ö-x6 → k6f6t-ö-x-x6 → k6f6tGök6 ‘I’ve opened to your ( ) ’ k6f6t-x-r-x6 → k6f6t-r-x-x6 → k6f6tGnk6 ‘I have opened for you ( ).’ stem-1-Case-object → stem-Case-1-object

In (15b) and (17), the Dorsal which precedes the consonant of the Case suﬃxes in UR fuses with the initial /x/ of the second person object pronouns and the fusion results in gemination. But object pronouns are not the only targets of . Case markers can also be aﬀected by . Whether the Case or pronominal suﬃx is a target of  depends on the nature of the ﬁrst segment of the pronominal suﬃx. When the pronominal suﬃx is not velar-initial, as in (18), the Case suﬃx displays . The clitic /-ö-a/ ‘to her detriment’ surfaces as -ö-a in (18a), so it is Light, but it surfaces as -p-a in (18b), so it is Heavy. (↑ indicates the original site of /-I/, i.e. 2  palatalization.)

273

OBJECT CLITICS

(18)

 as [ö] vs. [p] in the malefactive a. Light  b. Heavy  6-r6x-Ø-ö-a nG-r6x-ne-p-a ‘I/We send () to her detriment.’ tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a tG-r6ç-↑-p-a ‘You ( /) send to her ’ tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a yG-r6x-6ma-p-a ‘She/They send(s) () to her .’ yG-r6x-Ø-ö-a yG-r6x-o-p-a ‘He/They send(s) to her detriment.’ yG-r6xw-↑↑-p-a tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a ‘She/One sends () to her detriment.’

The -ö of (18a) is an underlying form while the -p of (18b) is a derived form. Recall that Chaha [p] is always a devoiced and simpliﬁed /öö/ (see §1.2.3). Again, the diﬀerence between Light and Heavy clitics lies in the presence only in the latter of the Dorsal X of the ﬁnal vocoids. The individual constituents of the [p] found in the Heavy clitic -p-a of (18b) are given in (19a). Assuming that vowel-initial object suﬃxes diﬀer from x-initial ones in not having Dorsal, the Dorsal X of (19a) is not followed by another Dorsal. In this case, the Peripheral nodes of the vocoids and  fuse, with the fused node dominating Dorsal/Labial, as in (19b). (19)

Peripheral Fusion a. /I, U, A/ +  /-ö/ b. → X + X

Peripherals fused X + X

Root

Root

Root

Place

Place

Place

Peripheral

Peripheral

Peripheral

Dorsal

Labial

Dorsal/Labial

The resulting fused Root node links to the X slots of both the vocoid and , which gives rise to gemination (i.e. [p], as one manifestation of a Heavy clitic). My analysis predicts that Dorsal/Labial in (19b) will be a contour segment [kp] or [pk]. But it is not. The reason, and what happens instead, will be discussed next.

274

SOUND MUTATIONS

9.4.3

LHA

as velarization

Besides the simple vs. geminate alternation, the [p] of (18b), reproduced in (20a), can be replaced by [k], (20b), without incurring any change in meaning, i.e. the [p] and the [k] in (20) are in free variation. See Hetzron (1977: 68) for similar observations. But [p] and [k] are not free variants in Chaha, as evidenced by minimal pairs such as s6p6r ‘has broken’ vs. s6k6r ‘has got drunk’, and a multitude of others. In other words, a geminated /ö/ does not become [k] in other contexts. It follows that the [k] in (20b) is a velarized [p]. (20)

Velarization in Heavy clitics (free variation) a. Labial b. Dorsal nG-r6x-ne-k-a nG-r6x-ne-p-a ‘We send () to her detriment.’ tG-r6ç-↑-k-a tG-r6ç-↑-p-a ‘You ( ) send () to her .’ yG-r6x-6ma-p-a yG-r6x-6ma-k-a ‘They () send () to her .’ yG-r6x-o-p-a yG-r6x-o-k-a ‘They () send () to her .’ yG-r6xw-↑↑-p-a yG-r6xw-↑↑-k-a ‘One sends () to her .’

The labial-dorsal free variation shown in (20) is a characteristic of Heavy clitics since such free variation is impossible in the Light clitics of (21). While the [p] in (20) alternates freely with [k], the [ö] in (21) does not alternate with [>]. (21)

Absence of velarization in Light clitics (no free variation) a. Labial b. Dorsal 6-r6x-Ø-ö-a *6-r6x-Ø->-a ‘I send () to her detriment.’ tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a *tG-r6x-Ø->-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

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

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

He She You ( )

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

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

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

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

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

He She You ( )

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

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

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↑↑

I He She You ( )

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↑↑

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

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

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

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

I He She You ( )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I He She You ( )

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

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

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

I He She You ( )

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

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

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

I He She You ( )

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

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

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

I He She You ( )

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

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

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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

We They () They () Impersonal

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