Abstract
In the first half of this chapter (sections 3.1 to 3.5) we review the properties of the geminates. In the remaining sections we present information about several phonological phenomena of Imdlawn Tashlhiyt. These phenomena are not central to the concerns of this book but their effects are seen in many examples and they come into play at one point or another of our discussion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
V. Leben (1980) and McCarthy (1979, 1981). For recent overviews, v. Inkelas and Cho (1993), Kenstowicz (1994a), Broselow (1995) and Perlmutter (1995).
Concerning the internal structure of segments we shall adopt the version of ‘feature geometry’ advocated in Clements and Hume (1995), in which all the features defining a segment are organized in a tree structure. The Root node is the node dominating the whole tree.
Willms (1962) had already reached the same conclusion for Kabyle, basing himself on evidence about the phonotactics of Kabyle syllables.
Verb-final geminates are split by the ‘chameleon’, a vowel which is inserted to form certain imperfective stems, v. DE (1991: 96) and § 5.2 in this book.
On schwa epenthesis in Rifian Berber, v. § 6.5.
’In general’, that is: unless the first consonant is released, which happens only in certain contexts, about which v. § 6.3.3.
There are a few exceptions to this statement. After a verb, for instance, a suffix or clitic comprised of one short consonant which immediately follows its long counterpart merges with it, e.g. /dd=d/ must be pronounced as though it were /dd/ in /s-bidd=d a-gždi/ (cau-stand=dir u(beam) ‘raise the beam on this side!’.
V. § 6.3.3.2 for details.
Abdel-Massih (1968: 127ff) posits various instantiations of (7) for particular consonant sequences in Ait Ayache Tamazight.
Evidently, someone upholding the featural analysis would rather talk about a problem of tenseness.
The special fusion exemplified in note 7 does not weaken our argument against (7). In order to account for this fusion, (5) and (7) must be supplemented with devices of comparable complexity.
The formulation in (10) is only a first approximation, v. § 6.3.3.
After a vowel the geminated high vocoid created by assimilation is pronounced as a geminate glide, e.g. t-a-wada n u-yyul / tawada w w-yyul ‘the donkey’s gait’.
On Stray Erasure v. e.g. Marantz (1982: 446).
Ouakrim (1995: 102) claims that in Ihahan Tashlhiyt tense consonants (what we call geminates) cannot be ambisyllabic. Take t-nna’ she said’, which is disyllabic in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt (tn.na). If it is also disyllabic in Ihahan, the only syllabifications compatible with Ouakrim’s claim are t.nna and tnn.a.
In free variation with uKwkwim. In Imdlawn Tashlhiyt labialized consonants optionally delabialize when they occur to the right of a rounded vowel belonging to the same word. We only give the delabialized variants in order to avoid cluttering.
V. DE (1991: 96-99), DE (1992).
/ww/ is also realized as gwgw in certain morphological environments, v. § 7.4.
On labial dissimilation, v. Elmedlaoui (1995a: 43-78).
Hayes (1990) and Selkirk (1990) discuss other problems with that conception.
In chapter three, published as Saib (1977).
E.g. Chaker (1984: 84-85). Kossmann (1994: 59-60) poses problem (i) and discusses various relevant facts in Figuig, but in the end he leaves the question unanswered.
Published with slight revisions as Ouakrim (1995).
V. Elmedlaoui (1993) for some discussion.
In that article we also examine an argument by Ouakrim (1995) based on duration measurements in Ihahan Tashlhiyt. We suggest that the author’s conclusions probably rest on a faulty phonological analysis of the data on which the measurements were made.
On emphasis in Tashlhiyt, v. Elmedlaoui (1985), Boukous (1987a) and the references cited in these works.
In §3.6, emphasis is indicated by underlining or by ‘!’. The two are equivalent.
This sound is identical with the emphatic variant of /i/ in Moroccan Arabic, which various authors describe as [e], erroneously in our opinion.
/a/ is furthermore subject to a phenomenon of prepausal backing. Immediately before a pause it is realized more posterior than its nonprepausal counterpart, e.g. whereas /sala-n/ ‘they finished’ is realized as [sælæn], before a pause /sala/ ‘finish!’ sounds more or less like [sæla] (v. Heath (1987: 23) for a similar phenomenon in Moroccan Arabic). Prepausal backing also occurs in emphatic contexts, e.g. /a/ in prepausal /t-!bda/’ she shared’ is even more posterior than /a/ in /!bda-n/ ‘they shared’. Prepausal backing does not obliterate the difference between emphatic a and nonemphatic a; the vowel in /t-!bda/’ she shared’ and that in /t-bda/’ she began’ are both back a’s, but that in the first word sounds more back than that in the second. Prepausal backing and emphatisation have the same influence on aa as on a. The only audible difference between a and aa in the various contexts where they contrast is one in duration. On aa, see the next section.
We are unable to determine whether the long t which immediately precedes [!š:] is emphatic or not.
The existence of a marked audible difference between the plain variant of the pharyngeal fricative /ħ/ and its emphatic variant is evidence that the secondary articulation of Imdlawn Tashlhiyt which we are calling emphasis is not mere pharyngealization.
On the other hand the difference between [z] and [!z] is easy to perceive, even in the absence of an ajacent vowel.
Literally ‘eat him with a third’.
A few nouns have singular and plural kernels which do not agree with respect to emphasis, e.g. a-ydi ‘dog’ vs. !i-yda-n ‘dogs’. There are also a few nouns in which emphasis and the lack of it are in free variation, e.g. a-frux or !a-frux ‘boy’, t-i-frx-in or !t-i-frx-in ‘girls’.
We use the term ‘root’ merely as an expository convenience.
In !tizukatin the stem-final t is epenthetic, v. § 2.5, note 20. The corresponding ms noun is !a-zuka.
In ikid the degree of emphasis seems to increase gradually during the time course of the second vowel, which sounds like emphatic [i] near the end. The vowel gives the impression of beginning as a plain i, an impression which may in part be due to the fact that the preceding consonant is palatalized ([ky]). While /k/ and /g/ regularly palatalize before /i/ and /a/ in nonemphatic contexts, their palatalized variants never occur inside an emphasis span. For the speakers’ categorial perception, the semi-emphatic i in ikid counts as a plain vowel, like the plain i in the last syllable in i-zri=k=id (3ms-overtake=do2ms=dir) ‘he overtook you (coming hither)’.
The sentence has another acceptable pronunciation, in which the second emphatic span is rabukad.
Pronouncing iyismmidasit is not altogether inacceptable, but feels far less natural.
i before the suffix is epenthetic (v. note 36), which explains why it can be nonemphatic, in apparent contradiction with (31)b.
From more abstract /!bda=ax/, with a hiatus-breaking yod.
A possible exception is a-raam ‘camel’ (p i-raaman); this word has no close phonetic analogue in Arabic.
Hasnayʕ, the plural of !ssnaat, is the only exception to rule (35) we have encountered.
On Berber and Arabic plurals, v. § 2.5.
Violations of this restriction are extremely rare, e.g. t-i-mtd-in ‘loin (cut of meat)’. Some exceptions are only apparent, e.g. !ttd ‘coagulate’, whose underlying representation can be assumed to be /!dd-d/, on account of the fact that /!dd/ regularly surfaces as !tt. On ‘+’, v. § 6.4.1.
On geminate glides, see § 7.4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dell, F., Elmedlaoui, M. (2002). Phonological Backdrop. In: Syllables in Tashlhiyt Berber and in Moroccan Arabic. Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0279-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0279-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1077-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0279-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive