Re: CV metathesis Q

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:27:35 -0400, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...>
wrote:
>
> Jeffery Jones wrote:
> >
> >I've been playing with a sketch where most of the verbs have two basic
> >stems, CVCVC and CVCCV, to which a number of affixes are added.
>
> Quick reply-- this sounds like my latest, Prevli, and the (Indonesian)
> natlangs Leti and its relatives.  Sorry, I haven't put anything about Prevli
> up on my website yet; it's still a-borning. There is some work on Leti on
> line-- a paper in the Rutgers Optimality Archive by Eliz. Hume comes to
> mind, but it follows Optimality Theory and is not quite comprehensible (to
> me)...
I always have trouble with such things myself, and right now everything's
incomprehensible (which is why I haven't replied). Maybe some time when I'm
not sick .... I did see that Hume has a small database on metathesis.

> Historically, in my opinion, the similar metathesis in Leti et al arises
> from (1) addition of an echo-vowel to preserve the final C (2) stress
> remains on the original penult, and the original ultima V is deleted by
> syncope; that produces forms like: MP *kulit, PLet *?ulit-i, Leti ulti
> ~ulit-  (a noun, but it also affects verbs, all forms in fact.)  I think
> that's pretty much what I modeled Prevli on, except Prevli can also
> metathesize initial CV-.  (I just like metathesis :-)))))
>
> There's also Rotuman, where CVCV alternates with CVVC.
>
>
> >Mostly,
> >I've been working on filling in the specific morphology and on subsequent
> >development (sound changes etc.) but recently, I started wondering
> >exactly how the two stems came about in the first place. Any ideas?
> >
> >I should probably mention that the first stem can take (C)V(C) suffixes
> >while
> >the second can take C((C)V) suffixes and that some of the suffixes also
> >have
> >alternating forms (CVC vs. CCV and VC vs. CV).
> >
> >I've been googling and it seems most morphology theorists disapprove of
> >this sort of thing.