Abstract
There is a tendency for syncretism between future and infinitive stems in Modern Hebrew. Verbs with final orthographic gutturals do not follow this trend in one verbal type. In another, they do follow it, but their exponent is different from that of regular verbs. Previous studies have claimed that (i) gutturals are represented in Modern Hebrew as a vowel /a/ (Faust, Noam. 2005. The fate of gutturals in Modern Hebrew. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University MA Thesis); (ii) Infinitives are derived in two cycles (Faust, Noam & Vered Silber-Varod. 2014. Distributed Morphology and prosody: The case of prepositions. In Burit Melnik (ed.), Proceedings of IATL29 (MITWPL 72), 71–92. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press); and (iii) stems seek to be no shorter than two syllables (e.g. Bat-El, Outi. 2003. The fate of the consonantal root and the binyan in Optimality Theory. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 32. 31–60.). Relying on these claims, an analysis is proposed involving two allomorphs with a priority relation. Phonological considerations of multiple correspondence, word size and cyclicity may nevertheless override the effect of priority, leading to the selection of the non-default allomorph. In the last section I briefly discuss two alternatives to the priority relation: the autosegmental alternative and the gradient alternative.
References
Bat-El, Outi. 1994. Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12(4). 571–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992928.Search in Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2002. Semitic verb structure within a universal perspective. In Shimron Joseph (ed.), Language processing and acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based, morphology, 29–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lald.28.02batSearch in Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2003. The fate of the consonantal root and the binyan in Optimality Theory. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 32. 31–60. https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.442.Search in Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia, Maria-Rosa Lloret & Joan Mascaró. 2007. Allomorph selection and lexical preferences: Two case studies. Lingua 117(6). 903–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.04.009.Search in Google Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel. 1982. Remarks on rhythmic stress in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics 18. 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002222670001361x.Search in Google Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel & Ora Schwarzwald. 1990. On vowel assimilation and deletion in casual Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 12. 23–48.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1951. Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania MA Thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, Robert. 1990. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620812Search in Google Scholar
Deutcher, Guy. 2005. The unfolding of lanaguage: An evolutionary tour through mankind's greatest invention. New York: Owl Books.Search in Google Scholar
Enguehard, Guillaume & Noam Faust. 2018. Guttural ghosts in Modern Hebrew. Linguistic Inquiry 49(4). 685–721. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00287.Search in Google Scholar
Faust, Noam. 2005. The fate of gutturals in Modern Hebrew. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University MA Thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Faust, Noam. 2021. The /aa/ moment in Modern Hebrew. In Gabi, Danon (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 34-35 (MITWPL 92), 43–58. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Faust, Noam & Paul Smolensky. 2017. Activity as an alternative to autosegmental association. Paper presented at the 25th Manchester Phonology Meeting, 25–27 May.Search in Google Scholar
Faust, Noam & Vered Silber-Varod. 2014. Distributed Morphology and prosody: The case of prepositions. In Nurit Melnik (ed.), Proceedings of IATL29 (MITWPL 72), 71–92. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gafter, Roey J. 2014. “The most beautiful and correct Hebrew”: Authenticity, ethnic identity and linguistic variation in the greater Tel Aviv area. Stanford: Stanford University Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Gesenius, F. H. Wilhelm. 1910. Gesenius' Hebrew grammar. As edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch. 2nd edition, revised in accordance with the 28th German edition by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy. 2011. Vowel epenthesis. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elisabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1576–1596. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0067Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive – A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10(1–2). 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.1989.10.1-2.287.Search in Google Scholar
Hoberman, Robert. 2007. Semitic triradicality or prosodic minimality? Evidence from sound change. In Cynthia L. Miller (ed.), Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic linguistics presented to Gene B. Gragg, 139–154. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Search in Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812408Search in Google Scholar
Larsen, Bergeton Uffe. 1998. Vowel length, Raddoppiamento Sintattico and the selection of the definite article in Italian. In Patrick Sauzet (ed.), Langues et Grammaire II–III, Phonologie, Vol. 8, 87–102. Paris: Université Paris.Search in Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), Current trends in phonology. Models and methods, 419–441. Salford, Manchester: ESRI.Search in Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 2007. External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.715.Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008. Doing optimality theory: Applying theory to data. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444301182Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 249–384.Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1996. Prosodic morphology 1986. Technical Report #32, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Search in Google Scholar
Morag, Shelomo. 2007. Pronunciations of Hebrew. Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd edn. Vol. 16, 547–562. New York: Thomson Gale.Search in Google Scholar
Pariente, Itsik. 2012. Grammatical paradigm uniformity. Morphology 22. 485–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9207-z.Search in Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul, Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. (RuCCS Technical Report 2.) New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science.Search in Google Scholar
Prunet, Jean-François. 1996. Guttural vowels. In Grover Hudson (ed.), Essays on Gurage language and culture, 175–203. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi, Giorgos Markopoulos & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2019. Changing shape according to strength: Evidence from root allomorphy in Greek. The Linguistic Review 36(3). 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2029.Search in Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology. Vol. 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110908336Search in Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2016. Melody-free syntax and phonologically conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 26. 341–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-016-9283-6.Search in Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew. 2009. The origin and development of nonconcatenative morphology. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Matthew Goldrick. 2016. Gradient symbolic representations in grammar: The case of French Liaison. Rutgers Optimality Archive 1286.Search in Google Scholar
Ussishkin, Adam. 2000. Root-and-pattern morphology without roots or patterns. In Masako Hirotani, Andrew Coetzee, Nancy Hall & Ji-Young Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistics Society [NELS], Vol. 30, 655–670.Search in Google Scholar
Ussishkin, Adam. 2006. Semitic morphology: Root-based or word-based? Morphology 16. 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-006-0002-6.Search in Google Scholar
Watson, Janet. 2002. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
