How words are syllabified?

Started by Blue Elf, March 19, 2012, 07:02:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Blue Elf

I'm wondering how words are divided to syllables. To be more specific:
we know, that ceremonial form of zenke is zolenuyeke, because *zolenuyke uses illegal syllable. No problem with syllables here: zo.le.nuy.ke/zo.le.nu.yke => nuy or yke is both illegal.
But suppositional version is zolenatseke because of the same reason. And here things get complicated: zo.le.nats.ke => "nats" is illegal.
But if we use zo.le.na.tske, there's no problem - tske is fine, but seems that first syllabification is correct, as it was used

So - are here some rules how to break word into syllables, especially when more divisions are possible?
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Kamean

Maybe, if you use infixes like -uy-, illegal syllables are acceptable? ??? :-\
Tse'a ngal ke'ut a krr fra'uti kame.


Ftiafpi

My understanding was that syllable rules could not be violated and syllables shift to accommodate those rules when infixes are applied. However, I could entirely be wrong, I have no basis for that.

Tirea Aean

I believe zo.le.nu.y[e].ke and zo.le.na.tske would be the divisions. Assuming that adding e is the proper escape to illegal syllable bounds. iyev infix is only other example I can think of. Because {consonant}iyv{vowel} is illegal. (That v at the end of the iyev infix shouldnt be a problem because it should always end up coming before a vowel.)

Im not 100% sure about what I have just said either. :/

Kamean

Tse'a ngal ke'ut a krr fra'uti kame.


Tanri

Don't forget, my friends, that zenke itself violates one of the most important rules about infixing - "infixes take place before the vowel".
I don't like the way zenke is presented, as if the base form was "zenke" and the "e" is added when infixing results in illegal syllable.

From my point of view, the base form is "zene ke", joined together and shortened to "zenke", but this shortening is allowed only when resulting syllables are correct.
Note that Karyu Pawl probably wanted to keep the final "ke" as one syllable in all infixed forms - so we have "ze.na.tse.ke" instead of "ze.na.tske".

Indeed, confirmation is the best way to distinguish "is" from "probably is". ;)
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

Nyx

We have a bit from Karyu Pawl here if it helps. The e isn't just added randomly.

And I believe as Tanri that the ke part is kept as one syllable as it comes from a separate word.

Kamean

Tse'a ngal ke'ut a krr fra'uti kame.


Blue Elf

Quote from: Nyx on March 19, 2012, 04:42:50 PM
We have a bit from Karyu Pawl here if it helps. The e isn't just added randomly.

And I believe as Tanri that the ke part is kept as one syllable as it comes from a separate word.
I read it, that post was source of my question.... Ok, Paul said it works this way, so it is rule, I just wanted to know why he used this syllabification, when another (which seems to be correct) is possible too. But idea of final pure "ke" probably explains it.
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

So, can this 'e' be inserted any time it is needed in a word, to prevent an illegal syllable/syllable structure? Or is the use of the 'e' something to be indicated by K. Pawl on a case-by-case basis?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Blue Elf

I don't think so. Zenke was created by shortening of "zene ke" - that's why that e is inserted (in fact it is "returned back" rather than "inserted")
Oe lu skxawng skxakep. Slä oe nerume mi.
"Oe tasyätxaw ulte koren za'u oehu" (Limonádový Joe)


Tirea Aean

Ah. I forgot about that wiki post. Thanks for posting that ma Nyx.

Yeah, Tanri does have a valid question concerning that post:

The wiki post says that zenängke is correct over zenängeke. But what happns with ats or uy? The ONLY possible outcomes are:

ze.nu.ye.ke (ke is preserved as syllable; *ze.nuy.ke is illegal)
ze.na.tske (ke is NOT preserved as syllable; ze.nats.ke is illegal syllabification) OR ze.na.tse.ke (ke is preserved as syllable)

and of course,

Quote from: Frommer
Note, however, that with the ceremonial ‹uy› and suppositional ‹ats› the e does not go away, since the resulting syllable would be illegal, so zolenuyeke and zolenatseke.

now the only possible is reduced to

ze.nu.ye.ke (ke is preserved as syllable; *ze.nuy.ke is illegal)
ze.na.tse.ke (ke is preserved as syllable)


Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on March 20, 2012, 11:29:33 PM
So, can this 'e' be inserted any time it is needed in a word, to prevent an illegal syllable/syllable structure? Or is the use of the 'e' something to be indicated by K. Pawl on a case-by-case basis?

I would say this:
Quotethe use of the 'e' something to be indicated by K. Pawl on a case-by-case basis

Here we have the case of zenke, comes from *zeneke. the e (part of the word's original form) is always dropped except when infixed by ats or uy. I'd personally call it a special case rather than a blanket rule. Similar things to this do seem to happen here and there though. But to my knowledge, all of the things we have to do/add/leave have been defined by Paul thus far.

Ftiafpi

Quote from: Tirea Aean on March 21, 2012, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on March 20, 2012, 11:29:33 PM
So, can this 'e' be inserted any time it is needed in a word, to prevent an illegal syllable/syllable structure? Or is the use of the 'e' something to be indicated by K. Pawl on a case-by-case basis?

I would say this:
Quotethe use of the 'e' something to be indicated by K. Pawl on a case-by-case basis

Here we have the case of zenke, comes from *zeneke. the e (part of the word's original form) is always dropped except when infixed by ats or uy. I'd personally call it a special case rather than a blanket rule. Similar things to this do seem to happen here and there though. But to my knowledge, all of the things we have to do/add/leave have been defined by Paul thus far.

I would agree with your assessment (at least until we get a definite ruling from K. Pawl). I hadn't considered the "e" from the original zene, I would have thought it would be more like the infix <iyev> and <ìyev> where the "e" is added for syllable structure. Either way, I agree that it's likely a case by case basis or, at the very least, there is a rule for it which we don't have.

However, in a pinch, I think we could insert "e" into a syllable if an infix causes structural problems and we have no easy way around it.

Tirea Aean

Not like it even happens often. ;)