LINGUIST List 11.763

Mon Apr 3 2000

Disc: Last Posting: Underlying Schwa?

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <>


  1. Jorge Guitart, Rules relating audi and oi in Galician

Message 1: Rules relating audi and oi in Galician

Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:33:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Jorge Guitart <>
Subject: Rules relating audi and oi in Galician

Francisco Dubert wrote

> The two most common patterns of conjugation of the verb "o�r/ouvir" ('hear')
> in Galician are:
> pattern 1 (["] stressed; [O] back mid-open vowel)
> [Oj]- root 1 in P1 Sing Indicative Present, and in all the Subjunctive
> Present
> Examples
> ["Oj-o] I hear (indicative)
> ["Oj-a] I hear (subjunctive)
> [Oj-"a-mos] we hear (subjunctive)
> [O]- root 2 elsewhere
> Examples
> ["O-e-s] you hear (Indicative Present)
> [O-"i-mos] we hear (Indicative Present)
> pattern 2 (["] stressed; [B] aproximant bilabial)
> [owB]- root in all the paradigm
> Examples
> ["owB-o] I hear (indicative)
> ["owB-a] I hear (subjunctive)
> [owB-"a-mos] we hear (subjunctive)
> ["owB-e-s] you hear (Indicative Present)
> [owB-"i-mos] we hear (Indicative Present)
> Both of the roots ([O] and [owB]) come from AUDIRE (latin).
> There exist in Galician forms taken over from Latin that contain a root
> _audi_ (_audici�n, inaudito, audible, auditorio_...).
> So,
> Should I derive sinchronically the roots [O]- or [owB]- from /audi/?, or
> Does the present Galician grammar contain rules that derive [O] or [owB]
> from an UR /audi/?
> In my view, it is irrelevant if these rules have to be lexical or
> postlexical rules, or if these rules have to be in this or that level... My
> question is: Does Galician's grammar need these kind of rules?
> The roots [O] and [owB] were created by direct evolution from latin; with
> different forms along the history, they were always present in the everybody
> language, and [O] and [owB] are the present result of this evolution.
> Words like _audici�n, inaudito, audible, auditorio_ came into Galician later
> (they are loan words, or created with loan words and loan sufixes).
> During centuries, these loan words weren't used by the majority of the
> population (but all the people used during these centuries forms like [O]
> and [owB]).
> Does the introduction of the loan words signify a change in the grammar of
> the verb "o�r/ouvir" 'hear', i.e., a change in the UR of "o�r/ouvir"?
> Has the UR of [O] or the UR of [owB] changed since words like _auditivo_
> have entered into the "common language"?
> If I were a child who learned to use [O]- at home, and, later, in the
> school, I learned _auditorio_... has the acquisition of _auditorio_ changed
> my grammar?
> Or is the relation between audi- and o-/ouv- a suppletive one?

Jorge Guitart comments

There is no need for either a morphological or a a phonological relation
between audi and o/ouv. They don't even have the same meaning. This should
be transparent in the fact that you can't say ojo for audio or audio for
ojo. I wonder if Galician has a minimal pair like oidor/auditor as
Castilian has. 

PS: At this point there is no need to beat the strawperson of
unrestrained abstractness.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue