syncretism w/o paradigms

[Andrew Nevins]

Hello, and thanks Martha -- the paper (handout!) was from LASSO,
is "When 'we' dis-agrees in Circumfixes" and
can be downloaded from http://web.mit.edu/anevins/www/lasso.pdf

Basically it seems to be to be the null hypothesis that
impoverishment happens AT a TERMINAL precisely when THAT
TERMINAL is being WORKED on. It seems like a bizarre
state of affairs to do impoverishment globally on the
whole tree BEFORE doing ANY VI. I tried to take advantage
of this in a case of "derivational opacity" w.r.t. spellout:
instead of adopting discontinuous bleeding as a principle,
or having constraints against redundant spellout of the
same feature twice, it seems that one way to deal with
circumfix-type systems where the suffix "realizes" a feature
usually reserved for the prefix is to have contextual allomorphy
for the suffix governed by the presence of F, (under the
Bobaljikian/Carstairsian constraint of upwards-only featural
allomorphy), followed by deletion of F. Basically just like
the Tiberian Hebrew epenthesis-before-a-glottal-stop, followed
by deletion-of-the-glottal-stop: the conditioner for rule 1
gets zapped before the surface. Of course, there are declarative
alternatives to that case, and to the morph. case, but I think
it's worth exploring.

I am sorry I haven't had more time to pipe up myself!

One of these days we will get the online DM-archive working with
enough papers that, just like the OT-sters, Late-Insertionists
can be guaranteed of finding a paper in a reliable place.

All the nest
AIN