360 likes | 544 Views
Words 2σ pá na 3σ tjú taya 4σ má la wa na 5σ pú li ŋ ka latju 6σ tjá mu lim pa tju ŋ ku 7σ tí li ri ŋ u lam patju 8σ kú ra nju lu lim pa tju ra 9σ yú ma ri ŋ ka ma ra tju raka . Gloss ‘earth’ ‘many ‘through’ ‘we (sat) on a hill’ ‘our relation’
E N D
Words 2σ pána 3σ tjútaya 4σ málawana 5σ púliŋkalatju 6σ tjámulimpatjuŋku 7σ tíliriŋulampatju 8σ kúranjululimpatjura 9σ yúmariŋkamaratjuraka Gloss ‘earth’ ‘many ‘through’ ‘we (sat) on a hill’ ‘our relation’ ‘the fire for our benefit flared up ‘the first one (who is) our relation’ ‘because of mother-in-law’ Timestamp:July 25, 2005 Pintupi, Language of Australia
The Raw Pattern • Main stress: always initial • Secondaries follow on every other syllable • Except the last, which is never stressed
Structural Interpretation • Feet are • Binary (σσ) • Trochaic: (X x) • Footing is • Left Aligned • As dense as possible, up to binarity • The first foot is the head of the Prosodic Word
Words 2σ pána 3σ tjútaya 4σ málawana 5σ púliŋkalatju 6σ tjámulimpatjuŋku 7σ tíliriŋulampatju 8σ kúranjululimpatjura 9σ yúmariŋkamaratjuraka Pattern (X x) (X x) x (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) x (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) x (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) (X x) x Pintupi: structural analysis
Relevant Constraints • FtBin: feet consist of two syllables. *(σ) • Parse-σ: every syllable belongs to a foot: *σ not in F • All Feet Left: every foot is at the left edge. • For each foot, * each σ intervening between it and left edge • All Feet Right: every foot is at the right edge • For each foot, * each σ intervening between it and right edge • Trochaic: feet are head-initial: *(x X) • Iambic: feet are head-final: *(X x) • Constraints demanding that first or last foot be head in Prosodic Word (omitted from discussion).
Entailments of p5 Check the L’s : L L, e, W ?
Entailments of p5 Check the L’s : L L, e, W ?
Entailments of p5 Check the e’s : e e, W ?
Entailments of p5 Check the e’s : e e, W ?
Entailments of p5 Check the W’s : W W ?
Entailments of p5 Check the W’s : W W ?
Reduced ERC set for Pintupi But p3 is disjunctive !
Fusion to the Rescue Disjunctivity eliminated !
Eliminating L’s following from transitivity ● Cleaner picture of local domination relations. NB: entirely legit by L-retraction!
FtBin p3◦p5 Parse-σTrochaic p5 p5 p1 AFLIambic p2 AFR Pintupi rankings and their justifications
[Optional] Challenge ! • We have assumed that Pintupi is trochaic. • We have seen no direct evidence for foot boundaries • They are inferred from the theory of prosodic structure. • How solid is the inference? • Does Pintupi have a (lurking, bizarre) iambic analysis under the constraints we’ve accepted?? • Challenge: show that Pintupi cannot be iambic under the constraints used here.
What would Iambic Pintupi look like? 2σ pána (pá)na (X) x 3σ tjútaya (tjú)taya (X) x x 4σ málawana (má)(lawa)na (X) (x X) x …and so on: same stress, different structures The goal: show that such forms can’t all be optimal. Find ERCs involving them that lead to inconsistency. ● No more than 2 ERCs are needed!
For Example No ranking can make both a and b optimal If you achieve success, and want me to look at it, Email your concise submission to prince@ruccs.rutgers.edu