Glide-consonant coalescence Glide-Vowel Coalescence

5 σ σ σ 6 σ σ σ N C N O N C N C O O N C n̩ ʔ j p u ʔ n̩ ʔ j p u ʔ However, the palatal glide does not have the luxury of existing either as a coda or as an onset. In either case of n̩ʔj] σ j=coda or jpu] σ j=onset, the SSP is violated since a glide is more sonorous than either of the consonants it might be clustered with. Candidates a and b illustrate the faithful case where no precedent structure changes are made, but the underlying sequence of segments is syllabified with j as either a coda or an onset. In these two cases, the SSP is fatally violated. The preferred alternative in Northern Pame is to preserve the SSP, which is accomplished by metathesization of the glide with the following consonant p a violation of LIN-IO This ordering places the glide in a more optimal, onset pre-nucleic position satisfying the SSP. Thus, candidate c is the winner.

8.2.2 Glide-consonant coalescence

Glide-consonant coalescence is a further consequence of glide metathesis, or rather, a violation of left alignment in order to preserve the SSP. As illustrated in chapter 5, a coronal or velar consonant adjacent to a palatal glide is forbidden according to the OCP, restated in 7. 7 OCP ‘Adjacent segments are prohibited’ In order to preserve the OCP, a coronal or velar consonant is fused with an adjacent glide to form a single surface consonant. This is a violation of UNIF-IO, which forbids such mergers. The definition is restated in 8. 8 UNIFORMITY-IO UNIF-IO McCarthy and Prince 1995 ‘Output consonants must not have multiple input correspondents’. The result is a ranking with the two markedness constraints, SSP and OCP, dominating two faithfulness constraints, LIN-IO and UNIF-IO. 9 Constraint Ranking SSP, OCP LIN-IO UNIF-IO 10 Glide-consonant coalescence Input: n-ʔj-núwæ SSP OCP LIN-IO UNIF-IO a. n̩ʔ.jnú.wæ b. n̩ʔ.njú.wæ c.☞ n̩ʔ.ɲú.wæ In 10, we see that the faithful candidate a does not satisfy the high ranking SSP. Candidate b is the metathesized alternate, which also fails due to a high ranking OCP violation. Candidate c goes one step further and violates the faithfulness constraint, UNIF-IO, exemplified in consonant coalescence. Candidate c wins by preserving the SSP and the OCP at the expense of two lower ranked faithfulness constraints.

8.2.3 Glide-Vowel Coalescence

In certain circumstances, metathesis of a glide suffix is not sufficient to produce an optimal surface form. Such a case occurs specifically when the UR has an initial root cluster of a consonant plus a laryngeal. It will be recalled that clusters such as ph th kh are prohibited from surfacing and consequently epenthesis takes place to break up the cluster giving us the laryngeally interrupted vowels discussed in chapters 4 and 5. Thus, a word such as [nmɑ́hɑw] ‘stomach’ has an underlying form nmhɑ́w before the repair of the consonant cluster mh takes place. We see this pattern occur with roots prefixed with a palatal glide as well, with the exception that the epenthetic vowel no longer is a copy of the root vowel such as ahaw from Vhaw from ‘stomach’. Rather, the vowel is a high front vowel i, or a vocalization of the glide prefix in conjunction with metathesis. Once again, the dominant constraint in motivating such a process is the SSP; in addition, the faithfulness constraint LIN-IO must be violated in order to remedy the glide in prefix position. 11 Glide Metathesis with subsequent vocalization I NPUT n ʔ j p h æ O UTPUT n ʔ p i h æ In addition to these, we will add the constraint in 12, which specifies the fact that laryngeals may not follow consonants in a consonant cluster. 12 Chʔ ‘A cluster of a consonant plus a laryngeal is prohibited in the output.’ The constraint Chʔ in turn dominates a faithfulness constraint preserving the consonantal specification for j, which is defined below as IDENT[cons]. 13 IDENT[cons] ‘Output segments have input correspondents for [cons].’ The final ranking of these four constraints is represented in 14, where the two markedness constraints Chʔ, SSP are unordered relative to one another, but dominant the two unordered faithfulness constraints LIN-IO, IDENT[cons]. 14 Final ranking Chʔ, SSPLIN-IO, IDENT[cons] 15 Glide vocalization Input: n-ʔj-phǽ Chʔ SSP LIN-IO IDENT[cons] a. n̩ʔ.jphǽ b. n̩ʔ.pjhǽ c. n̩ʔ.phjǽ d.☞ n̩ʔ.pí.hæ In 15 we see an input form with among other things, a palatal glide as a prefix marking 3 rd person possessor. Candidate a has the illicit cluster jph, which fatally violates Chʔ. At the same time, with j in the same precedence structure as the input form, the SSP is also violated. Candidate b violates LIN-IO, which preserves Chʔ, but fatally violates the SSP. Candidate c is a form that violates LIN-IO two times i.e. metathesis over two segments, which satisfies the SSP, but fatally violates Chʔ. Candidate d, however, appeases both Chʔ and the SSPj to i via vocalization and is the winner. Other forms that involve the preservation of the SSP via metathesis of a glide are those roots that contain the vowel e following a bilabial root onset. As illustrated above with forms such as nʔpjúʔ ‘his butter’, it has been shown that a violation of LIN-IO alone will suffice in SSP preservation. However, where the root vowel is e as in 16, vowel coalescence, an additional violation of the constraint UNIF- IO, must occur to accommodate this rather peculiar phonotactic constraint. 16 Glide vocalization Input n ʔ j pʰ e Output n ʔ pʰ i First, let us assume the familiar ranking of the SSP dominating LIN-IO as in 17. 17 Ranking SSPLIN-IO It is also necessary to stipulate the faithfulness constraint prohibiting aspirated palatalized labials as part of the underlying phonological inventory 18. Thus, the ranking in 17 must now include the subsequent ranking in 19. 18 pʰʲ ‘Palatalized labials are prohibited.’ 19 Ranking SSP,pʰʲLIN-IO However, the ranking in 19 will still not produce a candidate that agrees with the facts of the language, where the vocoid i surfaces in the lexical root. This must involve a violation of UNIF-IO as a coalescence of j and e. In order to motivate a violation of UNIF-IO, it is necessary to stipulate that front, non-low sonorants may not be articulated contiguously. 20 +-H ‘Contiguous front segments with [+high] and [-high] are prohibited.’ Looking at the distinctive features for Northern Pame vowels, we see that the only difference between i and e is the value for [high]. In this case, [+high] alone may surface, which is reminiscent of what we have seen with consonant coalescence during palatalization. 21 Vowel distinctive features i e æ ə u ɑ High + - - - + - Low - - + - - + Back - - - + + + The ranking of these constraints is quite similar to that in 14, where both markedness and faithfulness constraints are unordered among themselves, but markedness dominates faithfulness. 22 Ranking SSP, pʰʲ, +-H LIN-IO, UNIF-IO 23 Vocalizationcoalescence of j Input n-ʔj-pʰé SSP pʰʲ +-H LIN-IO UNIF-IO a. nʔ.jpʰé b. nʔ.pʰʲé c. nʔpʰjé d.☞ nʔpʰí Looking at the tableau in 23, we see an underlying form that contains a palatal glide prefix and a root with an initial labial consonant followed by e. The candidate in a is in violation of the SSP with the glide unaltered in its surface form. Candidate b satisfies the SSP by violating both LIN-IO and UNIF-IO in the form of consonant coalescence. However, such a form is not attested in the underlying phonemic inventory of Northern Pame; this is a fatal violation of pʰʲ. Candidate c contains a segmental j after the labial, but in so doing it is guilty of a violation of +-H. Candidate d, invokes UNIF-IO while at the same time preserving pʰʲ. This is accomplished by vowel coalescence in place of consonant coalescence. 8.3 Buccalization and voicing of the feature [sg]