Re: Derivations 2

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> --- Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:
> >
> > kja`lb+nja`+0 kja`lb+nja`+ma` kja`lb+nja`+(a)nt
> > 0 1
> > kjalb+, etc 2
> > nja+ 3
> > kjalbnja+, etc 4
> > kjalbnja` kjalbnama` kjalbna`nt 5
> > kjalbna`, etc 6
> > kjalnba` kjalnbama` kjalnba`nt 7
> > kjalna`b kjalnabma` kjalna`bnt 8

Doesn't rule 8 (see Cybalist message 34520 for a definition) leave a
permanent see-saw between **kjalna`bnt and **kjalnba`nt? I'd go for
vowel epenthesis.

> > ant 9
> > kjalna`bt 10
> > a`nt 11
> > kjalna`wt, etc 12
> > kjalna`ut, etc 13
> > kj_lna`ut kj_ln_uma` kj_lnawa`nt 14
> > kjlna`ut kjlnuma` kjlnawa`nt 15
> > kjl(+syllabic)na`ut, etc 16
> > kjln_wa`nt 17
> > kjl-n-wa`nt 18
> > kjln-wa`nt 19
> > kjlne`ut kjlnume` kjlnwe`nt 20
> > kjlne'ut, etc 21
>
> kjlab+nja will work too with (more of) my rules

The expression of the zero-grading rules is confusing, if not
irredeemably inadequate. I end up with *k^.lnwmé (*k^l.nwmé without
resyllabification) if I start from *k^lab, but then 4 sonorants in a
row is quite a challenge!

> s^'rnoti, s^'rnuma, etc

Richard.