568
edits
Prefix Reform: Difference between revisions
Add Hoemaı's comments
(reform reform footnote) |
(Add Hoemaı's comments) |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
The value of this proposal, apart from more flexibility and less ambiguity, is that stems no longer alternate between stressed and unstressed depending on whether they have prefixes attached to them (think {{t|<u>juı</u>taq}} vs. {{t|bụ<u>juı</u>}}). As another pleasant side effect, poly[[raku]]<nowiki/>ic words in {{done|3}} are now possible (like {{t|äımu}}, which before was ambiguous with the mid-falling allotonal forms of {{t|ạımu}} and {{t|ạ́ımu}}). | The value of this proposal, apart from more flexibility and less ambiguity, is that stems no longer alternate between stressed and unstressed depending on whether they have prefixes attached to them (think {{t|<u>juı</u>taq}} vs. {{t|bụ<u>juı</u>}}). As another pleasant side effect, poly[[raku]]<nowiki/>ic words in {{done|3}} are now possible (like {{t|äımu}}, which before was ambiguous with the mid-falling allotonal forms of {{t|ạımu}} and {{t|ạ́ımu}}). | ||
==Hoemaı's comments== | |||
[[Hoemaı]] commented on the proposal on [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/1206242007438073876 February 11, 2024 in #general]. {{Transcript|<blockquote> | |||
First of all, I agree with the motivation behind the proposal; the morphology isn't as simple as it could be, but there are reasons for this. | |||
The two downsides I see with the prefix proposal | |||
1) In Toaq beta, there were constructions like the following | |||
{{t|Gı mu hâo súq}} | |||
{{t|Bủ dủa jí hı râi ní.}} | |||
where the "prefixes" mu and hı would appear outside of the {{Tone|5}} clause that they belong to. | |||
When I created the prefix morphology of Toaq Delta, this was something I wanted to avoid. The prefix proposal looks like it would lead to something similar, e.g. {{t|buháo}}. This is why the morphology is as complicated as it is; I wanted both the stress and the word-tone to be on the first syllable. | |||
2) I see a great danger in the unstressed mid tone turning into a low tone in casual speech, making it very difficult to distinguish {{t|haobu háo}} and {{t|hao buháo}}. This is something that universal initial stress avoids. (I see that the most recent version of the wiki page has a rule about a change in vowel quality, which would help with this a bit. I'd have to mull it over) | |||
Bottom line: | |||
I wish I could just be 100% in favor of the proposal, because it's a good one. However, I want to be transparent about why I'm not and why the morphology is the way it is: it's not that I simply missed an easier alternative, but that I started with certain goals in mind (see above) and had to make the rules fit the goals. Are these goals worth the complexity? Depends on one's priorities. | |||
</blockquote>}} | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||