LINGUIST List 18.1382|
Mon May 07 2007
Qs: Russian Oxytone Nouns in /og/; Double Modal Constructions
Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Russian Oxytone Nouns in /og/: Stable or Unstable?
Double Modal Constructions
Message 1: Russian Oxytone Nouns in /og/: Stable or Unstable?
From: Brent de Chene <dechenewaseda.jp>
Subject: Russian Oxytone Nouns in /og/: Stable or Unstable?
It is well-known (see e.g. Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977:33) that Russian
has a small number of noun stems that alternate between a form that shows
the effects of final devoicing of obstruents and a form that shows the
effect of reduction of (immediately) pretonic /o/ to /a/, as in (1) (stress
is on the first vowel of the suffix if there is one and on the last vowel
of the stem otherwise).
(1) a. pirok ''pie (Nom/Acc Sg)''
b. pirag-a ''id. (Gen Sg)''
A priori, one might reason about this situation in either of the following
two ways (at least):
(A) Since there is a tendency for speakers to prefer basic or underlying
forms that coincide with surface allomorphs, we would expect the situation
in (1) to be (potentially) unstable.
1. If the oblique stem allomorph is taken as basic and the underlying form
is thus /pirag/, the Nominative/Accusative allomorph [pirok] will become
exceptional and potentially subject to replacement with a ''regular'' form
2. If the Nominative/Accusative stem allomorph is taken as basic and the
underlying form is thus /pirok/, on the other hand, the oblique stem
allomorph [pirag-] will become exceptional and potentially subject to
replacement with a ''regular'' form [pirak-].
(B) Since both of the alternations involved are entirely automatic, there
is no reason to expect the situation in (1) to be unstable; the underlying
form of the stem is /pirog/, even though that form coincides with neither
of the two surface stem allomorphs.
I am not aware of any data indicating whether or not the potential
instability predicted in (A) is actually observed in any relevant variety
of Russian (or other East Slavic language). In particular, on scenario
(A1), we would expect potential variation in the Nom/Acc form between
''irregular'' [pirok] and ''regular'' [pirak], and on scenario (A2), we
would expect potential variation in suffixed forms between e.g.
''irregular'' [pirag-a] and ''regular'' [pirak-a]. I would very much
appreciate hearing on this subject from people who are specialists and/or
native speakers and will post a summary if warranted.
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Charles Kisseberth. 1977. Topics in Phonological
Theory. New York: Academic Press.
Message 2: Double Modal Constructions
From: Tina Lin <yctl500york.ac.uk>
Subject: Double Modal Constructions
I am currently conducting research related to double modals and need to
contact speakers of a dialect with double modal constructions such as:
He might can go...
He might could go...
He might should go...
He might oughta go...
He might would go...
I would really appreciate it if a speaker of such constructions could
contact me and help me with grammaticality judgement tests for my research.
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.