Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>]

> From: Henry Churchyard <churchyh AT ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re: b-hebrew digest: August 22, 1998

> > optimality approach to phonology. on this view---are you ready?--
> > the pausal forms are faithful outputs and the contextual forms are
> > *derived* by refooting. I love turnings things on their heads!
 
> But generative prosodic analyses of Hebrew have pretty much followed
> that approach all along; certainly I've been taking the pausal stress
> positions as synchronically primary (less derived) in my own
> dissertation...

hey, does that mean I'm getting through? yippee!

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm saying there is
no derivation as such to pausal forms. input/output. period. no
lengthening rules, no pretonic anything, nothing. and that nonpausal
forms are *reductions* in unstressed contexts. moreover, this is the
result of abandonning Qimhi: you can work with surface outputs.

I think that generally it's the other way around: nonpausal are
*regular* outputs, and pausals are lengthened. certainly your own
studies are worded to suggest it's the pausal forms that are special
and lengthened. maybe I'm missing something.

there are three options. (1) context --> pause; (2) pause --> context;
(3) intermediate
          /     \
        pse.  ctxt.

I'm talking about (2), you're talking about (3).

while it's true that stress is assigned in the same place in standard
underlying representations as it appears in pausal forms, that stress
is in an intermediate form which still must pass a battery of rules.

so here's a difference that I see, maybe you can comment on it so I
don't misunderstand you or misrepresent you.

(1)     underlying
        (stress)
         |
        rule
         |
        rule
         |
        etc.
        (stress again)
         |
       /   \
    etc     etc
   /          \
pause           contextual


(2)     underlying(stress)
          |
        pause             --> context

the biggest difference I see is that surface outputs are *directly*
related in (2) (syncopation), whereas in standard work, there is no
direct relation, but rather a branching derivation as in (1). I assume
stating the generalization over surface forms is preferable, and
stating the generalization based on outputs themselves instead of
burying the generalization in the rules is preferable.

also crucial is you can't get the picture in (2) without *changing*
your phonology, so we're talking apples and oranges, probably.

cheers.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Vincent DeCaen, Ph.D.                                
<decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto

Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/intro.html
c/o Deparment of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor,  University of Toronto,  Toronto ON,  M5S 1A1

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food
and clothes.    --Erasmus