OTHER verb form issues!

[Swoka Swizaw]

I got to thinking...what about a verb ending in /ll/ or /rr/? Skll, let's say. Point is, I sense some new rules.

Aysäfpìl?

[Nyx]

Since ll and rr are pseudo vowels, the infixes would still go right before that, so your example would be just like lu except the vowel is ll. You'd get things like sk<er>ll, just like in plltxe where you get p<iv>lltxe. Or am I missing your point? (I've been out of this for too long, but I thought I'd just jump right back in)

[Plumps]

Exactly,

the only problem I see would be the perfective form. With this alone, it would stay {skll} I guess, since *skol (< sk‹ol›ll) would violate the rule that infixes never get stressed.

It is indeed interesting that something like this hasn't come up until now

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Maybe we could just say skol'll with the stress on the second syllable? 

[Swoka Swizaw]

Exactly,

the only problem I see would be the perfective form. With this alone, it would stay {skll} I guess, since *skol (< sk‹ol›ll) would violate the rule that infixes never get stressed.

It is indeed interesting that something like this hasn't come up until now

You forget the affirmative infix, <ei>. I am almost certain that /ll/ and /rr/ can NOT exist by themselves. So, what might happen to sk<ei>ll? I think that we might need to utilize the epenthetic "y", so as to produce <eiy>, thus skeiyll...

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

What made you say that /ll/ and /rr/ cannot stand alone?  Na'vi syllable structure is (F)(C)V(NF), which does allow for things like LL as a syllable.

The only reason we have 'rrta with a glottal stop is that it is quite physically impossible to glide a RR with the preceding word. Therefore, we insert a glottal stop because it has to be there.

[Swoka Swizaw]

What made you say that /ll/ and /rr/ cannot stand alone?  Na'vi syllable structure is (F)(C)V(NF), which does allow for things like LL as a syllable.

The only reason we have 'rrta with a glottal stop is that it is quite physically impossible to glide a RR with the preceding word. Therefore, we insert a glottal stop because it has to be there.

I honestly thought that...

[Plumps]

What made you say that /ll/ and /rr/ cannot stand alone?  Na'vi syllable structure is (F)(C)V(NF), which does allow for things like LL as a syllable.

The only reason we have 'rrta with a glottal stop is that it is quite physically impossible to glide a RR with the preceding word. Therefore, we insert a glottal stop because it has to be there.

I honestly thought that...

And you are perfectly right!

21 Jan 2010 in the 'I love you' bit, Frommer says:

BTW, [...] I may have forgotten to mention this in the LL post, but the "pseudo-vowels" rr and ll only exist in open syllables. (If you see I've violated that anywhere, please let me know . . . it's not impossible.)

That's the reason, why it's me'llngo etc. for the plurals of 'llngo and mì 'Rrta and not *mì Rrta. The glottis stop mustn't disappear because ll and rr cannot form a syllable on their own ... that's why they are pseudo-vowels – in some instances they behave like vowels, in others they don't.

In your supposed example of {skll}, yes of course, the affirmative would be {skeiyll} but just to insert a glottis stop makes no sense to me. Otherwise we would have *pol'lltxe ... but we don't. ‹ol› can merge with ll here only because pll- marks the unstressed syllable in plltxe. Otherweise we would have the same instance as with the imperfective in frrfen, where it's just frrfen (< f‹er›rrfen)

[Plumps]

And there we have an answer to this question

http://naviteri.org/2012/06/spring-vocabulary-part-3/

vll becomes v‹ol›ll > vol and v‹ei›ll > veiyll

Case closed