Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

pierce 111 119 Vowel Epenthesis vs Schwa Lexicalization in Classical Armenian Marc Pierce University of Texas at Austin In an article that unfortunately has not received much attention in the relevant literature Schwink argues that vowel epenthesis as in

Vowel Epenthesis vs Schwa Lexicalization in Classical Armenian Marc Pierce University of Texas at Austin In an article that unfortunately has not received much attention in the relevant literature Schwink argues that vowel epenthesis as in forms like n e man man ? similar ? was a lexicalized alternation in Classical Armenian in contrast to the traditional view which holds that vowel epenthesis was a living phonological alternation This paper critically evaluates Schwink's proposal and argues that three main factors contradict it First vowel epenthesis is a robust phonological phenomenon in Modern Armenian and the simplest historical account of this is that it was also alive and well in Classical Armenian Second Schwink's suspicion about the age of the alternation is unfounded as phonological alternations may indeed exist for centuries without becoming lexicalized or fossilized Finally the existence of various layers of loan words that are treated di ?erently with regard to a phonological alternation or restriction is also unremarkable Therefore in the absence of compelling evidence supporting it Schwink ? s proposal must be rejected in favor of the traditional assumption that epenthesis was an active phonological process in Classical Armenian In an article that unfortunately has not received much attention in the relevant literature Schwink argues that vowel epenthesis as in forms like n e man ? similar ? was a lexicalized alternation in Classical Armenian in contrast to the traditional view which holds that vowel epenthesis was a living phonological alternation Until Schwink ? s arguments are discussed and countered his analysis remains a viable alternative to the traditional account This paper therefore o ?ers a critical evaluation of his proposal I begin with a brief discussion of epenthesis in general then present a number of forms that are generally agreed to exhibit epenthesis in Classical Armenian and ?nally consider Schwink ? s proposal at I thank San Duanmu Benjamin Fortson and Robert Kyes for their assistance in the preparation of this paper as well as the JIES referees and James Mallory for his assistance in his role as editor Volume Number Spring Summer C Marc Pierce some length Epenthesis can be de ?ned either synchronically or diachronically in synchronic terms it is the insertion of any segment not contained in the underlying representation while in diachronic terms it is the insertion of any segment not found at an earlier stage or stages of the language as in the following examples In Axininca Campa an Arawakan language spoken in the Amazon region for instance t is inserted between vowels to resolve hiatus as in forms like nompisiti ? I will sweep ? derived from an underlying noNpisi-i as opposed to forms like nompoki ? I will come ? from an underlying noN-pok-i Itô The history of Romance yields a diachronic example as Latin initial sC clusters have shifted to esC in Spanish e g Latin spiritus Spanish espiritu ? spirit ? and Latin schola Spanish escuela ? school ? Hock There are a number of possible triggers