Figure from:Western Conference On Linguistics WECOL 91
Figure 18 Now, a baffling counterexample occurs in (19), which is fully grammatical with ezafe preceding just the kind of element it normally cannot accompany; in fact, (19) is identical to (17a) -- except for the absence of the adjective jaleb, "interesting""
Related Figures (50)
![a bisvlabie word from a monoss]- This is Type ive aliixation aiso general HWothe stem contains a pre-vocalic glide ¢ or y.](https://figures.academia-assets.com/86574172/table_004.jpg)
![advances to 1 placing the Theme, an initial 2, en chomage. This proposal of advancement is represented in (33). Under the proposal outlined above all the behavioral properties of dative subjects in Kashmiri, such as Quantifier floating, Control PRO, $-S-R and ECM can be stated in terms of its final 1-hood. The quirky “dative” on the Experiencer subject can be accounted for by following the proposals in Gerdts & Youn (1989). They make the distinction between I-Case [=inherent Case in GB theory] which is selected on the basis of semantic role of the nominal and licensed in initial structure, and $-Case [=structural Case in GB] which is the grammatical Case and licensed in the final structure.](https://figures.academia-assets.com/86574172/figure_005.jpg)
![As seen in the preceding examples, the conjugation prefix (position 10) appears as {z] immediately before the stem, but [s] before the d-classifier. That the underlying representation of the s-conjugation morpheme has an /s/ rather than a /z/ is indicated by the fact that it surfaces as [‘sa] when not the final conjunct morpheme - see (21). Given the stem-core analysis, the rule (be it phonological or allomorphic) which accomplishes the voicing would have to be able to make referetice to the stem, or be able to identify the classifier prefixes, once again requiring retention of level 1 brackets. Hargus’s formulation is given in (31).](https://figures.academia-assets.com/86574172/figure_017.jpg)
![Recall that the structure indicated by the tag [7] does not ‘happen’ be- fore or after that indicated by [7} The structures merely encode information characterising the slots which they are associated to. Only these skeletal slots are in sequence. By contrast, in AP F, does indeed occur before F2 and the NCC is required to control the patterns of this temporal association. In Au- tosegmental Phonology, (20b) is ill-formed because it includes as a sub-part the representation in (21a). My view is rather that (20a) is ill-formed because it includes the component (21b). We can compare the effects of the NCC and the Sharing Constraint while constrasting their methods by referring to (20).4](https://figures.academia-assets.com/86574172/figure_021.jpg)
![In fact, case (5a) is possible. In Cantonese, there are many such acceptable examples as in (5b). These data can be employed to support three different hypotheses. First, they may support the claim of C-place node vs. V-place node by Clements (1989) because the different phonological behaviours of consonantal labial and vowel labial to OCP prove that consonanta! labial and vowel labial belong to different place node. Second, they may support the claim of C-plane vs. V-plane proposed by McCarthy (1981, 1989) because belonging to different planes, /p/ and /u/ will not violate OCP. Third, they may support the claim about the difference between labial feature and round feature proposed by Sagey (1987). The Labial articulator node is activated in both consonants and vowels, but that only the latter are also specified [+round]. Note that Cantonese has both front and back round feature *round-round, instead of Labial feature *Lab-Lab.](https://figures.academia-assets.com/86574172/figure_032.jpg)
![As seen in (7a) and (7b), both front and back rounded vowels must be identifiable as Labial between nucleus and coda. Thus it can be seen that (6a) and (6b) is just a pair of counterexamples. To explain this front round vowel vs. back round vowel phenomenon, Yip (1988) suggests to make use of the kind of syllable-structure building rules in which only front rounded vowels are underly- ingly marked Labial. When syllable structure is built, first the prevocalic con- sonant is marked as an onset, then redundant values of [round] are assigned, including [+round] for the nonlow back vowels. Assigning a value of a terminal feature like [+round] automatically entails assigning the superordinate articulator node, in this case Labial. Then postvocalic consonants are marked as codas. The order is shown in (8):](https://figures.academia-assets.com/86574172/figure_035.jpg)
![Although Yip’s hypothesis can provide for us the explanation to the problem of the back rounded vowel in case (6) and (7), it fails to explain why OCP is not effective case (5), but must be effective in secondary articulatory kw. The feature geometry of secondary articulatory kw can be presented in several different ways, such as (10a) by Sagey (1986) and (10b) by Clements (1989). It should be pointed out that it is very important in the hypothesis (8) pro- yosed by Yip that linear order in phonological representation, redundancy rule for +round] must be applied after creating onsets and before creating codas. It is nly in this way that the contradiction between (6) and (7) can be solved, as seen n (9):](https://figures.academia-assets.com/86574172/figure_036.jpg)
