Bilabial consonants are based on the neutral consonant p. According to this approach, he determines lexical contrasts for voicing, nasality and aspiration, while glottalization for bilabials is
unattested. Words such as npɑ̌jɑl ‘horse’ base form, bɑsɑ́ ‘corn cobs’ voicing, mɑsɑ́ ‘corn cob’ nasalization, and npʰúju ‘chair’ aspiration exemplify the opposition of bilabials. Notice that a
palatal bilabial stop is possible only in a morphological environment i.e. consonantal mutation where it contrasts with the neutral form. The aspirated palatal bilabial stop contrasts with the aspirated bilabial
stop, again under morphological conditions only such as in npʰúju ‘chair’ and pʰʲúju ‘chairs’. In summary, Avelino clarifies the issue left unanswered by earlier Pamean studies by asserting that
Northern Pame ambiguous sequences are in fact, complex consonants. Moreover, he maintains that complex consonants can be of two types, lexical and morphological where the latter may contain the
former, but not vice versa. This is a step in the right direction, but as the present research will illustrate in the next section, a lexical-morphological opposition model is inadequate.
4.2.3 Critique of previous approach
The lexical-morphological opposition claim for Northern Pame consonants is challenged in this research based on the fact that there are many words that contain complex segments that are not morphologically
derived. That is not to say that complex segments do not occur at morpheme boundaries, but rather that they are not limited to these environments. Furthermore, the present research maintains that in any
morphological derivation, only lexically contrastive segments may surface, rather than a mix of both morphological and lexical ones.
To begin, let us consider the segmental units that Avelino claims are morphological oppositions only 1997: 82.
6 Lexical~morphological oppositions tʰ~ʎ
l~ʎ t’~t͡ʃ’
pʰ~pʰʲ t͡ʃʰ~t͡sʰ
p~pʲ t͡ʃ’~t͡s’
m~mʲ, mʰʲ In the morphological-lexical model, the claim is that the oppositions in 6 will only be found among
morphologically mutated consonants, not lexical ones. The validity of this claim can be tested by comparing it to elicited data. As it turns out, such oppositions are also consistent among lexical
contrasts. 7 Examples of consonants in 6 that are not morphologically derived.
tʰ~ʎ ntʰúj
‘woman’ ʃiʎə̌
‘hummingbird’ t’~t͡ʃ’
nt’ɑ̃̌ ‘mesquite tree’ ʃt͡ʃ’ə́ʔ
‘tortilla plate’ t͡ʃʰ~t͡sʰ
ʃit͡ʃʰuɑ̌ ‘thigh’ gut͡sʰéʔ
‘snake’ t͡ʃ’~t͡s’
ʃt͡ʃ’ə́ʔ ‘tortilla plate’
nt͡s’ɑ̌wn’ ‘avocado’ l~ʎ
bɑlě ‘many, much’
ʃiʎə̌ ‘hummingbird’
pʰ~pʰʲ npʰúhu ‘chair’
stəpʰʲút ‘basket’
p~pʲ dəmpú ‘black’
gəmpʲú ‘firework’
m~mʲ, mʰʲ nmǽʔp ‘donkey’ nmʰʲə̃́n
‘soup’ The data in 7 provide evidence of lexical contrasts for segments or sequences that Avelino claims to
be strictly morphological 6. For example, the lexical-morphological model asserts that tʰ may contrast in both non-morpheme and morpheme boundaries, while ʎ only appears at morpheme
boundaries. However, the examples in 7 show that both tʰ and ʎ can appear in morphologically
non-complex contexts. In summary, the lexical-morphological approach to Northern Pame segments overgenerates. As the
following chapters will illustrate, consonant coalescence is a productive morphological process in Northern Pame and a high number of segmental contrasts are found in these specific environments.
However, morphological boundaries are not the exclusive domain for certain morphological segments, but rather the environment for richest amount of lexical contrast.
4.2.4 The non-segmental status of ambiguous sequences.
