> long /VV/ YFQW.M YFQIYM
> short stressed /V/ YFQOM YFQ"M
> unstressed WAY.FQFM WAY.FQEM
> in this case, a three way opposition is explained as a contrast
> between /VV/ and /V/, and also in quality/length distinctions for
> /V/ under stress. vowel length is phonemic in underlying
> representations.
Henry wrote:
Well, active phonological alternations between "long" h.ireq or
h.ireq-yod and s.ere/s@ghol are not actually very frequent (perhaps
mainly relics from an earlier diachronic stage of the language), nor
are alternations between "long" shureq/qibbus. and h.olem/qames..
Peter's comment:
Am I right in understanding this as good evidence that the
YFQW.M/YFQOM and YFQIYM/YFQ"M alternations are not phonologically
conditioned but are likely to reflect different underlying verb forms?
This is thus good evidence, surely, for a deep difference between
"long" and "short" forms of YIQTOL, and that WAYYIQTOL is not simply
WE- plus ordinary YIQTOL (though it might be WE- plus short jussive
YIQTOL). Any further comment on this argument?