PROCEDIMIENTO DE RECOLECCIÓN DE DATOS

Upon careful inspection, we find that the solution presented above is too powerful:

it predicts vowel epenthesis to arise in environments where it never occurs. In fact, the present analysis demands that every superheavy syllable located at the postlexical level be ‘fixed’ with vowel epenthesis, due to the constraint ranking *SUPERHEAVY

#D^EP-V. This, of course, is clearly false — a form such as *i

“eu

“ktrom ‘binding; cord’

(Skt. yoktra-), which is composed of the root *i

“eu

“g- ‘yoke; join’ plus the instrumen-tal suffix -tro- plus acc.sg. -m, is predicted to undergo either schwa epenthesis (stem

*[i“eu scenarios are conceivable within the framework of PIE syllabification proposed thus far.

I presently see two possible routes that one may take to solve this problem of over-generation. The first, and perhaps simplest, would be to abandon the requirement for syllable onsets at the postlexical level and to follow Sievers 1878 et al. in assuming SL to be a process of resyllabification, not epenthesis, as in (58) above: *[tert]σ[i

“os]σ→

*[ter]σ[ti]σ[os]σ. In the OT analysis, we may simply replace the constraint that blocks vowel epenthesis (D^EP-V) with one that blocks any change in the feature [syllabic]

within the derivation.

(78) I^DENT(^σ): Do not alter the value of the feature [syllabic]. Assign one _∗ for every instance this feature has been altered.

To propose a constraint of this nature for PIE would not be controversial, since the feature [syllabic] alternated frequently, productively and cyclically in PIE sonorants, whose syllabicity (for the most part) depended on its surrounding phonological envi-ronment.⁵⁰ In addition, should we view SL as a process of resyllabification, the change of *terti

“os to *tertios (and not **tert@os or **tertr

˚os) is a given, while the above anal-ysis utilizing epenthesis does not provide a reason why *terti

“os should epenthesize

*[i] (→*tertii

“os) and not *[u], *[a], *[r

˚], etc. Nevertheless, the assumption of SL as a process of resyllabification does lead to problems in the formal derivation.

(79) POSTLEXICAL *[i

In example (79) we see that the desired candidate *[i

“eu

“k]σ[trom]σloses, since super-heavy syllables are avoided in all cases through sonorant resyllabification.

50See Kobayashi 2004:27 and section 1.5.

(80) P^OSTLEXICAL *[tert]σ[i

“os]σ the most optimal candidate. Now, one might propose to switch the constraints F^AITH(^σ) and *C^OMPLEXO^NSETaround (*C^OMPLEXO^NSET

# F^AITH(^σ)), thereby making *[ter]σ[ti]σ[os]σ the best candidate. This idea fails, however, since we need some mechanism to prevent words of the shape *tetsi

“os and absolutives such as *tr

˚ktu

“o- from undergoing Sievers’ Law, as seen in (81) below.

(81) *[tet]σ[si

Thus it seems that SL should not be explained as a process of resyllabification and we should return to the original idea of epenthesis, with minor tweaks to the analysis.

These tweaks should not only explain why the forms **i

“eu

“k@trom and **i

“eu

“ktr

˚rom do not exist; it should also provide a reason for the choice in epenthetic segment in the output, such that *terti

“os_→*tertii

“os and not **tertui

“os, etc.

Perhaps a better solution to the problem would be to assume that SL is a process of vowel epenthesis, whose epenthetic segment has completely assimilated with an adjacent sonorant. Such a process of segment harmony is well attested typologically and in Indo-European, most often in partial assimilation. For example, in Sanskrit, sequences that continue * ¯R

˚(< PIE *R

˚H) develop an epenthetic vowel, whose quality is affected by adjacent segments: ¯u if following a labial or labiovelar consonant

(p¯urn.á-‘full’ < pl

˚h₁nó-), ¯ı otherwise (t¯ırn.á- ‘crossed’ < PIE *tr

˚h₂nó-).⁵¹ Another example may be found in Old Latin, where a short vowel produced by ‘weakening’ is rounded to [u]

before a pinguis, or dark, l (*sikelos > Siculus ‘an inhabitant of Sicily’) and before labial consonants (*pontifaks ‘high priest’ > OLat. pontufex).⁵² In both instances certain features of adjacent consonants have spread to the vowels in question.

To present formally this process of segment harmony in PIE we will need to assume two additional constraints for the postlexical level.

(82) ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS.

a. D^EP[F]IO: Every feature of the output has a correspondent in the input.

Assign one∗for each instance a new feature is inserted.⁵³

b. N^O-S^PREAD([F], seg): Feature-segment associations in the output must be reflected by the corresponding elements in the input. Assign one∗for each instance for each violation.⁵⁴

The first constraint, DEP[F]IO, requires that no additional feature be present in the surface form that is not underlying. The second, N^O-S^PREAD([F], seg), prevents the

51Fortson 2010:212.

52Weiss 2009:117-8. I refer the reader to Uffmann 2006:1080ff. for additional examples from non-IE languages.

53Struijke 2002:153. Note that I assume the default vowel of epenthesis, *[@], to have had (a bundle of) features in PIE ([-high]? [-round]?).

54Struijke 2002:154, based on McCarthy 2000:159.

assimilation of features between segments. The necessary constraint ranking will be D^EP[F]IO # *S^UPERHEAVY _# F^AITH(^σ) _# *C^OMPLEXO^NSET _# D^EP-V, N^O -SPREAD([F], seg). This will ensure that any segment epenthesized at the postlexical level will have assimilated as much as possible with its surrounding segments.

(83) POSTLEXICAL *[ter]σ[ti

“os]σ

Having fixed the problem of overgeneration with the introduction of the constraints DEP[F]IO and NO-SPREAD([F], seg), let’s now turn to the consequences of our anal-ysis, of which there are many.

55At the moment it is not entirely clear to me why the candidate *[i

“eu

“]σ[ktr

˚]σ[rom]σis not found as a Sievers variant. Perhaps this may be attributed to the markedness of the sequence $PPR

˚- in PIE, as is seen in the simplification of the sequence $PPN

˚-: #d^hg^hm

˚-→#g^hm

˚- (Mayrhofer 1986:117-8).