SOUND MUTATIONS

This book was originally selected and revised to be included in the World Theses Series
(Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague), edited by Lisa L.-S. Cheng.
SOUND MUTATIONS
THE MORPHOPHONOLOGY OF CHAHA

DEGIF PETROS BANKSIRA

MIT & UQAM

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

PHILADELPHIA/AMSTERDAM
 TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of Ameri-
8

can National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for

Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Degif Petros Banksira.
Sound mutations : the morphophonology of Chaha / Degif Petros Banksira
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
1. Chaha dialect--Morphophonemics. I. Title
PJ9288.95.C453 2000
492’.8--dc21 00-023619
ISBN 90 272 2564 8 (Eur.) / 1 55619 859 0 (US) (alk. paper)
© 2000 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA
 To the memories of
my mother AxGwji Argaw,
my uncle Tekle Haimanot Argaw
and
Professor Robert Hetzron
 Table of Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
Résumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii

C 1
Phonemes, Syllables, and Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 The fricatives and the spirant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1.1 The velar nature of x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1.2 Differences between fricatives and x . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 [k] is not an underlying stop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 [b, p] are not underlying stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.4 Ejectives and voiced stops: laryngeal assimilation in verb
roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.5 The segmental makeup of /t/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.6 The treatment of borrowed plain voiceless stops ([p, t, k]) . . . 10
1.2.7 The distribution of phonemes in affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 Sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.1 The bilabials are sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3.2 The liquid /r/ and the nasal /N/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.3.3 The high vocoids /U/ and /I/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3.4 Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.4 Feature specification and underspecification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.5 Syllabification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.5.1 Syllable structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.5.2 Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.5.3 Epenthetic vowel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.5.4 Treatment of hiatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.6 Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.6.1 Basic verb stems and verb types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.6.2 Stems expanded by affixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.6.3 Stems expanded by reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

C 2
Geminate Devoicing and Degemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2 Devoicing and degemination in verbs without a doubled radical . . . . 46
2.2.1 When the final radical is /r/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2.2 When the final radical is /A/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.2.3 When the final radical is a high vocoid (/U/ or /I/) . . . . . . . . 50
2.2.4 When the final radical is a bilabial (/ö/ or /m/) . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2.5 When the final radical is an obstruent other than [t] . . . . . . . 51
2.2.6 When the final radical is [t] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.2.7 Devoicing in the Jussive and Perfective of I-second
quadriradicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.3 Devoicing and degemination in verbs with doubled radicals . . . . . . . 61
2.3.1 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled final radical . . . . . 61
2.3.2 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled medial radical . . . . 64
2.3.3 Voiced geminates in totally reduplicated verbs . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.3.4 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled initial radical . . . . 71
2.4 Devoicing and degemination in nouns and adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.5 Devoicing and degemination in affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.6 Absence of devoicing and degemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.7 Geminate devoicing and underspecification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.7.1 Absence of laryngeal specification in sonorants . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.7.2 The patterning of /ö/ and /t/ with sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix 2a. On the second-radical vocoid in Amharic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Appendix 2b. On Amharic C1C1C2 verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
 TABLE OF CONTENTS ix

C 3
On the Distribution of [x] and [k] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.2 x and k are not contrastive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.3 The role of a following radical in the strengthening of /x/ . . . . . . . . 97
3.3.1 When the radical following /x/ is a fricative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.3.2 When the radical following /x/ is /A/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.3.3 When /x/ and a following fricative/A are separated by a
consonant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.3.4 When /x/ is followed by radicals other than fricative/A . . . . . 102
3.4 Some apparent problematic cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.4.1 When /x/ is followed by an infix -a- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.4.2 Exceptional precontinuant [x] and nonprecontinuant [k] . . . . . 107
3.5 Realization of a stem-final singleton /x/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
3.6 Realization of a doubled /x/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3.6.1 Realization of /x/ in totally reduplicated verbs . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3.6.2 Doubled final /x/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.6.3 Doubled medial /x/: the frequentative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.7 Realization of a geminated /x/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.7.1 Penultimate geminates in verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.7.2 Special final geminates in participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.8 Strengthening and underspecification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.8.1 [] in obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.8.2 [] in sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.8.3 The sonorant nature of /ö/ with respect to [] . . . . . . . . . 120
3.8.4 Following vs. preceding [+] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

C 4
Sonorant Alternations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.2 Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.2.1 Geminate nasalization and degemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.2.2 Initial nasalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.2.3 Penultimate coda nasalization () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.3 Interaction of  with epenthesis, /A/ and complex consonants . . . . 131
4.3.1 Interaction of  with epenthetic [G] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.3.2 Interaction of  with the radical /A/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.3.3 Interaction of  with complex consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
x TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4 The role of doubling on  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

4.4.1  in verbs with a doubled medial radical . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.4.2  in verbs with a doubled final radical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.4.3  in verbs with total reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.5 The role of the  on  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.6  and borrowings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4.7 Alternations of [r] and front vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4.8 Liquids and nasals in some problematic stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.9 Liquids and /N/ in affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
4.9.1 [r] and [n] in suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
4.9.2 The emergence of [l] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.9.3 Absence of liquids in prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
4.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

C 5
Initial, Geminate and Post-N Strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.2 Initial strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.2.1 Occlusivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.2.2 Nasalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.3 Geminate strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
5.3.1 Occlusivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
5.3.2 Nasalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5.3.3 Lateralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.4 Post-N strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
5.4.1 Nasalization of a post-N /r/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
5.4.2 Occlusivization of a post-N /ö/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.4.3 Occlusivization of a post-N /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
5.4.4 Post-N continuant obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
5.5 Approximant strengthening vs. obstruent strengthening . . . . . . . . . . 171
5.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

C 6
On the Articulators of Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.2 Hierarchical organization of the articulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.3 Cluster simplification in totally reduplicated verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
6.3.1 Labial-coda deletion in a cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
6.3.2 No coronal-coda deletion in a cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
 TABLE OF CONTENTS xi

6.3.3 Dorsal-coda deletion in a cluster and its absence . . . . . . . . . 179

6.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
6.4 Totally reduplicated verbs containing the liquid /r/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

C 7
Labialization and Palatalization Triggered by /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7.2 Derivational suffixes involving /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
7.2.1 Labialization and palatalization in verbal participles . . . . . . . 186
7.2.2 Decomposition of /U/ and /I/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
7.2.3 Labialization and palatalization in nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
7.2.4 Labialization and palatalization in adjectival/nominal
participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
7.2.5 Adjectival/nominal participles involving reduplication and a
suffixal /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
7.2.6 Infinitives in Inor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
7.3 Derivational infix /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
7.3.1 Nonrightmost labialization and stem-internal palatalization . . . 200
7.3.2 Labialization and palatalization in adjectives and/or nouns
with -a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
7.3.3 Labialization without palatalization in adjectival/nominal
participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
7.3.4 Nonrightmost labialization in verbal participles . . . . . . . . . . 204
7.3.5 Adjectival/nominal participles involving reduplication and an
infix /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7.4 Inflectional suffixes involving /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
7.4.1 Impersonal labialization and palatalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
7.4.2 Interaction of impersonal labialization and palatalization . . . . 208
7.4.3 Deriving the different lists of palatalizable consonants . . . . . . 210
7.4.4 Raising in the impersonal subject and its absence in the 3
 object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
7.4.5 Labialization without palatalization: the 3  object . . . . 213
7.4.6 The 3  object suffix in Muher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
7.4.7 Masculine plural subject suffix in Inor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
7.5 Word-initial /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
7.5.1 Derivational prefixes involving /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
7.5.2 Root-initial /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
7.5.3 Nonfloating /U/ in [−w6t] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
xii TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.6 Roots involving non-initial /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

7.6.1 Verbs beginning with a round vowel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
7.6.2 Medial /U/ between two consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
7.6.3 Medial /U/ in I-second quadriradicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
7.6.4 Final /U/ and a penultimate coronal obstruent . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.6.5 Deriving a subclass of the ‘weak’ glides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
7.6.6 Final /U/ preceded by a penultimate /r/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
7.6.7 Final /U/ preceded by nonlabializable consonants . . . . . . . . . 226
7.7 U-triggered palatalization in Tigrinya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.7.1 U-medial verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.7.2 U-final verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
7.7.3 Forms involving labialization and palatalization . . . . . . . . . . 229
7.7.4 The numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
7.8 On floating vs. nonfloating /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
7.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Appendix 7. Some factual errors concerning labialization . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

C 8
Subject Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
8.2 Variable vs. invariable subject affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
8.2.1 Q1 as aspect and subject clitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
8.2.2 Q2 as subject agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
8.3 Alternating prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
8.3.1 The 6- vs. N- alternation in the 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
8.3.2 The t- vs. Ø- alternation in the second person . . . . . . . . . . . 252
8.3.3 The yG- vs. y6- alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
8.3.4 The yG- vs. y6-/Ø- alternation in the impersonal . . . . . . . . . . 254
8.4 Alternating suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
8.4.1 Readjustments before clitics (-xw/-x, -c(6)/-c and -n6/-ne) . . . 255
8.4.2 Readjustment after the second person /-x6/ (-x6/-x, -o/-u and
-6ma/-ma) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
8.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

C 9
Object Clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
9.2 Distinguishing Case from pronoun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
9.2.1 The three sets of Case markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
 TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii

9.2.2 [n] as part of the third person object pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . 264

9.2.3 An n-insertion analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
9.2.4 -Ø as an accusative/dative suffix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
9.3 The clitic nature of object suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
9.4 Light-Heavy Alternation () of clitics as subject-clitic interaction . 268
9.4.1 A proposal for the  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
9.4.2  as simplex vs. geminate alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
9.4.3  as velarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
9.4.4  as [−n] vs. [−y] alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
9.4.5  in the  clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
9.4.6  as [−n] vs. -Ø alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
9.4.7  and the 3  object labialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
9.4.8 Apparent absence of  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
9.4.9 Summary of  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
9.5 Supporting evidence for my hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
9.5.1 Previous and present hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
9.5.2 Clitics following the  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
9.5.3 Clitics following the two 2  allomorphs . . . . . . . . . . . 291
9.5.4 Stem-final vs. suffix-final vocoids and the following clitics . . 292
9.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Appendix 9. –kft ‘open’ conjugated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
 List of Tables

1.1. Phonetic inventory of Chaha consonants 1

1.2. Phonetic vowel inventory of Chaha 3
1.3. Some properties of fricatives, /x/, /ö/ and /r/ 20
1.4. Phonemic inventory of Chaha consonants 40
2.1. Calculation of expected devoicing and exceptions 82
3.1. The contexts for the allophones of /x/ 97
6.1. Clusters restrictions in totally reduplicated verbs 180
7.1. Summary of contexts with simultaneous labialization and
palatalization 235
8.1. Absence of alternation in the 3  prefix 251
8.2. Alternation in the 1 prefix 252
8.3. Alternation in the second person prefix 253
8.4. Alternation in the elsewhere prefix 253
8.5. The optionality of y6- in the impersonal Subjunctive Present 254
8.6. Criteria for distinguishing Q1 from Q2 259
9.1. Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha 262
9.2. Q2 subject suffixes and the following clitic 269
9.3. Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha (reproduced from Table 9.1) 290
 Acknowledgments

This book is the result of a long gestation period that started many years ago in
Ethiopia. In this note, I would like to acknowledge the people and institutions
that helped me realize this tremendous task and the happy ending that followed.
Many people have contributed significantly to my formation and to the develop-
ment of the ideas expressed in the book. It is therefore my pleasure to be able to
express my gratitude to them.
My interest in the study of Chaha started when I was an undergraduate
student at Addis Ababa University in the department of Ethiopian Languages and
Literature. I then joined the Ethiopian Languages Academy to do research on the
oral tradition of Gurage. My undergraduate professors in the University and my
colleagues in the Academy as well as the institutions had tremendous impact in
my formation and developing a keen interest in linguistics. They deserve a
sincere appreciation. In this regard, I would also like to praise the significance of
research done by Professors H. J. Polotsky, Wolf Leslau and Robert Hetzron in
introducing us to the intricacies of Chaha and the other Gurage languages.
This book is a revised version of a thesis, entitled The Sound System of
Chaha, submitted to Université du Québec à Montréal in 1997. I would like to
thank the jury of the thesis defense: Anna-Maria Di Sciullo, Jean Lowenstamm,
John Lumsden and Jean-François Prunet for their time and patience in reading
the thesis and for their pertinent questions and comments, which have contributed
to the improvement of this book. In addition to this, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo’s
interest on aspect and affixes motivated several lively and illuminating discus-
sions. Jean Lowenstamm’s contributions to this book and to my life have been
vital. His support has always surpassed my expectations; he has been and will
always be my “Aba” of the Occident. From a linguistics point of view, my
interest in most of the problems in this book were inspired by him. We have
extensively discussed on a variety of linguistic issues and his ideas have always
been extremely helpful. John Lumsden repeatedly read and commented on one
of the most complex chapters (subject affixes) and asked significant questions
xviii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

pertaining both to the claims and to the formalism. Jean-François Prunet has set
a high standard for clarity of problems and argumentation. This, of course, is
time-consuming and Chaha is not that simple. Yet, he has never been tired of
offering highly constructive and all-round criticisms. Without his meticulous
corrections this book could not have been the same. My other professors, namely
Philippe Barbaud, Denis Bouchard, Henrietta Cedergren, Mohamed Guerssel,
Claire Lefebvre, Monique Lemieux and Anne Rochette from UQAM and Mark
Baker, Glyne Piggott and Lisa Travis for McGill have all largely contributed to
my formation and to the betterment of this book.
As a postdoctoral researcher at MIT, I have had the great opportunity to
present different chapters of the book at Ling-lunch and MIT phonology circle.
I would like to express my gratitude to the audience for their comments. Special
thanks to Morris Halle, Michael Kenstowicz and Cheryl Zoll for reading chapters
of the book and offering valuable comments.
Sharon Rose has read the entire book and offered very detailed suggestions
in both form and content. Her questions and appreciation towards my claims
have always been great incentives.
My friend Berhanu Chamora has also been my great consultant in questions
pertaining to doubtful conjugations in Chaha as well as in his native language,
Inor. The regular discussion sessions we held along with Jean-François served to
tackle problems of both Chaha and Inor.
Girma Halefom, my undergraduate professor at Addis Ababa University, has
read a chapter of the book. He questioned some of my claims and offered
invaluable suggestions and encouragement. Besides, his family has always been
with me to share celebrations of joy and sadness far away from home.
Jessica Payeras has always been there for support and encouragement. Her
limitless love and hope were especially indispensable for the writing of this book.
Her comments and questions on many chapters were very important as well.
I would like to thank Louisette Emirkanian, Lorne H. Bouchard and their
children for their friendship and for allowing me to consider their home mine.
Special thanks to Chloé, for her drawings, for her flowers …
Thanks to my family and friends back home for their support and for
showing me that any goal can be achieved through patience and hard work. I
also appreciate the support of Mengistu Amberber, Amar Awel, Tadesse Biru,
Sinkineh Folla, Tafesse Work Wolde, Aminu Said, Fathi Said and their families.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to an anonymous reviewer
whose comments and questions have highly contributed to the betterment of the
book. In this respect, I would also want to thank Professor Lisa Cheng for acting
as the editor of this book (it was supposed to have been published by Holland
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xix

Academic Graphics in the World Thesis Series) and suggesting improvements.

On the financial side, Canadian and Quebec grants have contributed enorm-
ously for the preparation of the book. In this regard, I would like to acknowledge
the following grants: SSHRCC #410-91-0716 (directed by Jean Lowenstamm and
Mohamed Guerssel), #410-94-1062 and #410-97-1335 (directed by Jean-François
Prunet), FCAR #95-ER-2305 and #98-ER-2305 (directed by Jean-François
Prunet, Carole Paradis and Renée Béland), CAFACC (directed by Jean-François
Prunet, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo and Mohamed Guerssel). Thanks also for la
Fondation de l’UQAM for awarding me the Judith Mc A’Nulty 1996–1997
scholarship. Finally, the completion of this book was made possible thanks to my
postdoctoral fellowship #756-97-0507 from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada.
 Abbreviations

1 first person  malefactive/instrumental

2 second person Case marker
3 third person () noun (phrase)
 accusative/dative Case  obstruent
marker  Obligatory Contour
 Amharic Principle
 approximant  Penultimate Coda
 benefactive Case marker Nasalization
 consonantal  perfective
 constricted glottis  plural
 continuant  singular
 detriment  sonorant
 feminine  specifier
 Geminate Nasalization  spread glottis
and Degemination  light-heavy alternation
 Initial Nasalization  something
 intransitive () tense (phrase)
 International Phonetic  transitive
Alphabet  underlying representation
 masculine () verb (phrase)
 Résumé

Ce livre examine les mutations consonantiques: le renforcement, les articulations

secondaires et la morphologie des affixes sujets et objets en chaha, une langue
sémitique éthiopienne.
En ce qui concerne le renforcement, il est montré que le dévoisement des
consonnes géminées et son absence découlent d’une contrainte qui interdit un
trait [voisé] final lié à deux points du squelette. De même, on constate que
l’alternance x/k et son absence découlent d’une contrainte qui interdit un [x]
précédant un phonème [+continu]. Le dévoisement requiert la sous-spécification
des traits laryngaux et l’alternance x/k celle de [continu] dans les sonantes. Il est
démontré que la nasalisation de la liquide géminée /rr/ s’applique sans tenir
compte des consonnes radicales avoisinantes (donc les traits segmentaux ne
conditionnent pas la nasalisation). Il est proposé que l’opposition des trais
laryngaux en chaha vaut entre les occlusives [voisé] et [glottalisé] et que /p, k/ ne
font pas partie de l’inventaire phonémique. Il est aussi proposé que le [b] du
chaha est dérivé par occlusivisation de l’approximante /öœ/. Les mutations sont
classées en deux groupes: le renforcement des occlusives (b, d, g/x → p, t, k) et
celui des sonantes (U, ö, r → bw, b, N). Le renforcement des occlusives est
conditionné par l’interaction de la structure syllabique (par ex. si le phonème est
lié à deux syllabes) et des traits avoisinants alors que le renforcement des
sonantes est surtout conditionné par la seule structure syllabique.
Pour ce qui est des articulations secondaires, ce livre propose que le
phonème /U/ déclenche à la fois la labialisation et la palatalisation des conson-
nes. Cette hypothèse explique de façon unifiée les phénomènes suivants:
pourquoi la labialisation entraîne la palatalisation en chaha; pourquoi un seul
suffixe déclenche soit la labialisation soit la palatalisation en muher; et pourquoi
certain verbes ayant un /U/ non-initial sont ambivalents en tigré et en tigrigna.
De plus, cette analyse résout le problème classique des morphèmes discontinus,
la labialisation et la palatalisation provenant d’une même source /U/. L’analyse
de /U/ et de sa contrepartie palatale /I/ rend compte aussi de l’enrichissement de
xxiv RÉSUMÉ

l’inventaire consonantique (par l’ajout d’une articulation secondaire) et de la

rareté des voyelles non centrales (parce qu’elles seules disparaissent en laissant
des articulations secondaires).
Enfin, au niveau des affixes d’accord sujet, une classification en deux
groupes “variables” et “invariables” est proposée. Les affixes variables sont
sensibles à l’aspect; leurs positions et contenus phonologiques varient en fonction
du caractère perfectif ou imperfectif du verbe. Les affixes invariables, quant à
eux, sont insensibles à l’aspect du verbe; leur position et contenu phonologique
sont constants. Plusieurs processus phonologiques affectant le radical et les
suffixes objets sont sensibles à ces deux classes d’affixes, lesquelles sont, par
ailleurs, utilisées pour une nouvelle analyse des alternances impliquant les
suffixes objets “lourds” et “légers.”
Mots clés: accords sujets, chaha, clitics objets, dévoisement, Éthiopie, gémina-
tion, gouragué, labialisation, langue, sémitique, linguistique, morphologie,
nasalisation, occlusivisation, palatalisation, phonologie, redoublement, renforce-
ment
 Abstract

The book investigates and attempts to explain sound mutations which are mainly
related to strengthening, the rise of secondary articulations and the morphology
of subject and object affixes in the Ethiopian Semitic language Chaha.
Concerning strengthening, the book shows that geminate devoicing and its
absence follow from a constraint prohibiting a doubly linked final [voice].
Similarly, the x/k alternation and its absence are shown to follow from a
constraint prohibiting a precontinuant [x]. The analysis of geminate devoicing
requires that sonorants be laryngeally unspecified and that of the x/k alternation
suggests that approximants lack [+]. It is also shown that geminate nasaliza-
tion occurs irrespective of surrounding radicals, showing that the features of
these segments play no role in conditioning geminate nasalization. It is argued
that laryngeal contrasts in Chaha are between [voice] and [constricted glottis]
consonants and that /p, k/ are not part of the phonemic inventory. It is also
proposed that [b] is an occlusivized allophone of the approximant /öœ/. Two types
of strengthening, that of obstruents (b, d, g/x → p, t, k, respectively) and
sonorants (U, ö, r → bw, b, N, respectively) are distinguished. It is argued that
obstruent strengthening is conditioned by both syllabic structure (e.g. being
linked to two syllables) and the features of surrounding phonemes while sonorant
strengthening is conditioned mainly by syllabic structure.
With respect to the rise of secondary articulations, this book proposes that
the phoneme /U/ causes both labialization and palatalization of consonants. This
proposal gives a unified account as to why labialization entails palatalization in
Chaha, why a single suffix triggers either labialization or palatalization in
Muher, and why some verbs containing a noninitial /U/ are ambivalent in Tigre
and Tigrinya. This proposal also solves the problem of discontinuous morphemes
because labialization and palatalization originate from the same source /U/. The
analysis of /U/ and its palatal counterpart /I/ also accounts for the enrichment of
the consonant inventory (rise of secondary articulation) at the expense of back
and front vowels (which disappear when they become secondary articulations).
xxvi ABSTRACT

Subject agreement affixes are classified in two groups called variable and
invariable. Variable affixes are aspect-sensitive, i.e. their linear order and
phonological content varies depending on the aspect of the verb. Invariable ones
are insensitive to the aspect of the verb; they are constant in linear order and
phonological content. Different phonological processes affecting the stem and
object suffixes are shown to be sensitive to these two classes of affixes. It is
shown that this distinction can explain naturally the classic problem in Gurage
known as ‘light” and “heavy” object suffix alternations.
Key words: Chaha, devoicing, Ethiopia, language, gemination, Gurage, labializa-
tion, linguistics, morphology, nasalization, object clitics, occlusivization, palatali-
zation, phonology, reduplication, Semitic, sound mutation, subject agreement,
strengthening
 Introduction

The material discussed in this book mainly comes from the Ethiopian Semitic
language Chaha. Ethiopian Semitic languages are divided into Northern and
Southern branches. The Northern branch includes Geäez (now extinct and used
only in the liturgy), Tigre and Tigrinya. The Southern branch includes Amharic,
Argobba, Gafat, Harari and the “Gurage cluster.” According to Leslau (1979) the
Gurage cluster has twelve dialects. These are: Chaha [c6xa], Eža [6Ša], Gyeta
[gy6ta], Inor [Gnoor] (also known as Ennemor), Endegeň [Gnd6ga\6], Masqan
[m6sk’an], Muher [mw6xGr], Gogot, Soddo, Selt’i [sGlt’i], Wolane [w6l6ne] and
Zway. The classification of these dialects is controversial. But, so far, everybody
agrees that the first six are West Gurage, the last three East Gurage and Soddo
North Gurage. There is no agreement whether Muher and Gogot belong to the
West or North Gurage branches. In addition, whether West Gurage constitutes
one language or a group of languages is a controversial issue.
The first chapter of the book introduces the phonetic inventory of Chaha and
proposes that some of the sounds presented are absent underlyingly. Many of the
proposals to be dealt with in detail in the consecutive chapters are laid out. Sounds
are classified and some arguments for this classification are presented. The
syllable structure and templates to be used throughout the book are introduced.
Chapter 2 discusses an alternation between voice and voiceless penultimate
consonants present in many verbs. It is assumed that all verbs with this alterna-
tion have an underlying voiced penult. The voiced allophone is used in Nonper-
fective stems, such as -m6gGr ‘suppurate’, while the voiceless one is used in
Perfective stems, such as m6k6r- ‘has suppurated’. (Verb stems in Chaha require
at least one affix, so the stems are always bound, as are -m6gGr and m6k6r-, but
they will not be hyphenated throughout this book.) There is also another class of
verbs with a voiced penult but without the voice-voiceless alternation. These
have a voiced consonant in both Nonperfective and Perfective stems, e.g. r6gGd
‘touch’ vs. n6g6d ‘has touched’. This chapter shows that the determining factor
for the presence or absence of the voice-voiceless alternation is the root-final
xxviii INTRODUCTION

radical. It is shown that the alternation is present when the final radical is a
sonorant or t and absent when the final radical is an obstruent other than t. It is
also argued that this asymmetry follows from a constraint prohibiting a doubly
linked final [voice] and the assumption that sonorants and t are unspecified for
laryngeal features. So the alternation does not occur when the last radical is
laryngeally specified, in which case the laryngeal specification of the penult is
not the last one of the stem on the Laryngeal tier. This chapter also shows that
all instances of [p] and some instances of [t, k] emerge as a consequence of the
constraint on a doubly linked final [voice].
Chapter 3 discusses an alternation between spirant and stop penultimate
consonants. In verbs displaying this alternation the spirant is used in Nonperfec-
tive stems, such as m6xGr ‘advise’, while the stop is used in Perfective stems,
such as m6k6r ‘has advised’. But other verbs do not have the alternation; a stop
is used in both Nonperfective and Perfective stems, e.g. r6kGs ‘bite’ and n6k6s
‘has bitten’. This chapter shows that the determining factor for the presence or
absence of the spirant-stop alternation is the final radical consonant. If this
radical is a sonorant or a stop there will be an alternation in the preceding
radical. If the final radical is a fricative there will not be an alternation. It is also
proposed that the asymmetry follows from a constraint prohibiting a precontinu-
ant [x] and the assumption that sonorants and stops are unspecified for continu-
ancy. The reasoning is that the constraint prohibiting a precontinuant [x]
strengthens all instances of /x/ to [k], in which case there is no x/k alternation. In
other words, the x/k alternation occurs only if /x/ is not followed by a [+cont]
radical. The spirant-stop alternation exhibited by voiceless velar obstruents has
always been analyzed as depending on the position of the phoneme in the word
(postvocalic, intervocalic, etc.). My discussion of the distribution of x and k in
Chaha will challenge this standard view. In my analysis, the velar spirant
surfaces as k in k6t6f ‘has hashed’ due to the final /f/. This k never alternates
with x but it is in complementary distribution with x and the two derive from a
single phoneme. In contrast to the /f/ in k6t6f, the /r/ in x6t6r ‘has thatched’ does
not cause the initial x to strengthen even though both /f/ and /r/ are continuant
phonemes. The difference between /f/ and /r/ in triggering strengthening of a
preceding /x/ is shown to follow from the assumption that [+cont] is unmarked,
hence unspecified, in approximants (like /r/). This chapter also accounts for the
limited distribution of k (it is found only when it is doubled or followed by a
certain class of radicals) by proposing that it is not an underlying consonant of
Chaha (it is rather a devoiced /g/ or a strengthened /x/). The overall distribution
of x and k is accounted for by postulating three constraints: No Precontinuant [x],
No Geminate [x] and No Different Allophones of /x/ in the Stem.
 INTRODUCTION xxix

Verbs with an alveolar sonorant penult are discussed in Chapter 4. The

penult of these verbs alternates between a liquid and a nasal. The liquid is used
in Nonperfective stems, such as x6rGm ‘spend the year’, while the nasal is used
in Perfective stems, such as x6n6m ‘has spent the year’. Differing from the verbs
of Chapters 2 and 3 (where the voice-voiceless and spirant-stop alternations
affected some verbs and not others) verbs with an alveolar sonorant penult do
not divide into alternating and nonalternating types; they all exhibit the liquid-
nasal alternation. An account of this alternation as well as other liquid-nasal
alternations is offered in this chapter. It is also shown that the nasal allophone
is derived from an underlying liquid.
The discussions in Chapters 1 to 4 lead to the conclusion that the devoiced,
strengthened and nasalized allophones do not correspond to identical underlying
phonemes in Chaha. Chapter 5 shows how these allophones are derived. Devoic-
ing (b, d, g → p, t, k) and strengthening (x → k) are analyzed as obstruent
strengthening while nasalization (r → N) and occlusivization (U, ö → bw, b) are
analyzed as sonorant strengthening. The two types of strengthening are com-
pared. It is concluded that obstruent strengthening affects features like [cont] and
[voice] (these are not major class features and they are assumed to be below the
Root node) and it is governed by restrictions pertaining to the syllable and sub-
Root node constraints (such as being followed by a continuant or laryngeally
specified radical). On the other hand, sonorant strengthening affects major class
features like [approximant] and [sonorant] (these are assumed to constitute the
Root node itself), and it is governed mainly by restrictions at or above the Root
node (such as being initial or doubly linked). This distinction between obstruent
and sonorant strengthening is used to explain why verbs with an alveolar
sonorant penult do not have alternating and nonalternating classes (because the
features of the final radical cannot condition sonorant strengthening).
Chapter 6 investigates the role of place features in consonant deletion. By
studying cluster simplification in totally reduplicated verbs, I suggest that Coronal
is the least and Labial the most marked articulators. I also propose a dual depen-
dency in which Dorsal is dominated by both Peripheral and Lingual class nodes.
Chapter 7 attempts to account for the rise of secondary articulations on con-
sonants. The consonant inventory of most Gurage languages is highly enriched
by the creation of nonphonemic sounds such as the labialized labials (pw, f w, bw, mw)
and palatalized velars (k’y, ky, gy, ç), which are not found in Proto-Ethio-Semitic.
The enrichment of the consonant system does not arise as an independent and
accidental process but with a simultaneous impoverishment of the vowel system.
In particular, the frequency of the front vowels i, e, 7 (these can cause palatal-
ization and disappear, or surface as a central vowel G) is much lower than that of
xxx INTRODUCTION

the central vowels a, 6, G (these cannot cause labialization or palatalization).

Similarly, the frequency of the back vowels u, o, f (these can cause labialization
and disappear, or surface as a central vowel G) is much lower than that of the
central vowels but much the same as that of front vowels. For example, in Chaha
word entries beginning with d in Leslau’s (1979) dictionary, the ratio of back,
central and front vowels is 1: 26: 1.23 (i.e. for 1 back vowel found in those
entries there are 26 central and 1.23 front vowels) even though the phonetic
inventory has an equal number of back, central and front vowels. This
consonant-vowel asymmetry and peripheral vs. central vowel disproportion is
accounted for by proposing that the terminal features of /U/ (a phonemic element
found in all back vowels) and /I/ (a phonemic element found in all front vowels)
always abandon their articulators and float to dock on preceding targets. So /U, I/
are not pronounced independently. In this account, the lower frequency of back
and front vowels comes from the fact that they disappear and leave a trace on
surrounding consonants in the form of a secondary labial or palatal articulation.
This explains why enriching the consonant inventory by adding secondary
articulation lowers the frequency of back and front vowels and their disproportio-
nal distribution compared to central vowels. It is also argued that /U/ has a feature
[round], which triggers labialization, and a feature [high], which triggers palatal-
ization. Accordingly, /U/ alone triggers simultaneous labialization and palatalizat-
ion. Evidence from different languages is presented to support the claim.
A phoneme such as /U/ can also be an affix by itself and manifest itself as
a floating affix. For example, the object marker w ‘him, his’ docks on the
penultimate labial in k6f6t6mapw6m ‘they () have opened to his detriment’, on
the medial labial in k’6n6mw6c6nGm ‘she has insulted him’ and on the initial velar
in k’w6t’6r6c6nGm ‘she has killed him’. In other words, w does not have a fixed
position. Rather, it starts from a position immediately preceding the final /-m/
and floats leftward till it finds a docking target (i.e. labial or velar consonant). If
the word does not contain a labial or velar consonant (other than the final /-m/),
w
does not appear, as in at’6n6r6c6r6m ‘she has purified it for him’. From a
phonetic point of view, this floating w is an affix whose domain of affixation is
the entire word. Despite its parasitic nature and the variation in its anchorage, w
is a morpheme similar to the invariable English suffix -ly. While changing the
linear order of morphemes is illicit in English, cf. *in-differ-ly-ent, it seems to be
licit in Chaha. The variability in the linear order of w may appear to support
Anderson’s (1992) claim that words have no internal structure and that word
formation is attained by a list of ordered rules. On the other hand, Lieber (1992)
proposes that affixes have subcategorization. In line with her proposal, this book
attributes an underlying fixed position for /U/ and constrains its movement. By
 INTRODUCTION xxxi

doing this, we can explain why the final -m is never labialized. But in an
analysis where /U/ does not have a fixed position, it would be problematic to
account for why it does not affect the final -m. Based on this and similar
observations, it is argued that floating affixes are better analyzed as occupying
configurationally organized fixed positions.
In Romance languages such as French, subject markers are invariable in that
they are suffixes in all tenses, e.g. nous aim-âmes ‘we loved’, nous aim-ons ‘we
love’ and nous aim-er-ons ‘we will love’. But, we will see in Chapter 8 that
subject markers in Semitic can be either variable or invariable (which is a
different issue from that of floating affixes). For example, the 3  subject
marker in Chaha is suffixed as -c in k6f6t6-c ‘has opened-3 ’ whereas it is
prefixed as tGG- in tGG-k6ft ‘3 -opens’. Not only do the affixes -c and tG-
include different sounds but they are also positioned on opposite sides of the
stem even though both express the same concept (she). The choice between the
two affixes is determined by aspect (-c is used in the Perfective and tG- in the
Nonperfective). Yet, there are also invariable subject suffixes which are not
sensitive to a change in the aspect of the verb. For example, the   is -o
in the Perfective, k6f6t-o ‘have opened- ’. The suffix -o is used also in
the Nonperfective, yGG-k6ft-o ‘3-open- ’, but here it requires the prefix yGG-.
The -o is invariable, since it has a constant linear order (with respect to the stem)
and phonological content in both the Perfective and Nonperfective aspects.
Couched in Distributed Morphology framework, this chapter offers a novel clas-
sification of subject suffixes of Ethiopian Semitic languages into the variable and
invariable types. It also claims that the distinction between variable and invari-
able affixes receives a natural account in an analysis where each set is analyzed
as holding independent syntactic node. The variable affixes are clitics and the
invariable ones are subject agreement, so that -c and -o are categorially different.
It will also be shown that the linear order of clitics depends on the aspect of the
verb whereas subject agreement markers are suffixal irrespective of aspect.
Based on the investigation of the variable affixes it is proposed that they have an
underlying fixed linear order and that they comply with word-internal structure.
Finally, a very complicated alternation in object suffixes called Light-Heavy
alternation is investigated in Chapter 9. It is proposed that the abandoned Dorsal
articulator of subject agreement suffixes is responsible for the Light-Heavy
alternation. The discussions here provide additional arguments for the claim put
forth in Chapter 7 that terminal features abandon their Dorsal articulator. This
chapter also supports the variable vs. invariable distinction proposed in Chap-
ter 8. It shows that the variable suffixes are followed by Light object suffixes
and the invariable ones by Heavy object suffixes.
 C 1

Phonemes, Syllables, and Stems

1.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I present the phonetic inventory of Chaha and argue that some of
its sounds are not underlying phonemes. I maintain that some underlying
phonemes contain unspecified features which are phonologically inactive. I also
offer a brief description of the syllable structure and the formation of stems.
Consider the following phonetic inventory of Chaha consonants:
Table 1.1. Phonetic inventory of Chaha consonants
(1) plain Round alveolar alveo- palatal plain round
labial labial palatal velar velar
Stops
Voiceless ejective t’ k’y k’ k’w
w
Voiceless p p t ky k kw
Voiced b bw d gy g gw
Affricates
Voiceless ejective c’
Voiceless c
Voiced j
Fricatives
Voiceless f fw s w
Voiced z Š
Spirants ç x xw
Sonorants
Nasal m mw n ^ \ ]
Approximant öœ w r (l) y

Part of this book will be an attempt to identify the phonemes underlying this
phonetic inventory.
2 SOUND MUTATIONS

The alveo-palatal fricatives [w, Š] are produced by retracting and raising the
tongue blade towards the front of the hard palate, narrowing the contact area and
creating partial blockage. On the other hand, the affricates [c’, c, j] (IPA [č’, č,
ǰ]) are produced by raising the tip and blade of the fully spread tongue (as when
it is at rest) towards the alveolar ridge and front of the hard palate. In attaining
full blockage [c’, c, j] are like the stops [t’, t, d] but they differ from stops in
having wider contact area (between the tongue and extended place of
articulation). This has the impact of distributing and diminishing the force
exerted during the closure, which also makes the release less abrupt. It should
also be noted that [c’, c, j] in Chaha do not have two — stop and fricative —
phases. For example, the cluster [tw] in yG-t-w6k6t ‘it gets better’ and the [c] in yG-
c6kGr ‘he cooks STH’ are not pronounced in the same way. Similarly, [dŠ] in ad-
Š6p6r6-m (from at-Š6p6r6-m) ‘he made return/reimburse’ and [j] in a-j6g6r6-m ‘he
troubled’ are pronounced differently.
Given the phonetic occurrence of the plain voiceless stops [p, t, k] in a
language, it is more likely that they be phonemic. However, I will show that
[p, k] are not underlying phonemes of Chaha and that the phoneme /t/ does not
function like the other obstruents. My argument for this claim is that the oral
bilabials [ö] ( [öœ], but I use the usual transcription ö), [b] and [p] derive from
a bilabial voiced approximant /öœ/. So [b, p] are not underlying stops. Similarly,
[k] is not an underlying phoneme but is instead a strengthened allophone of
either /x/ or /g/. So [k] is not an underlying voiceless stop. Moreover, /t/ is the
default consonant and has no specification for laryngeal features. It will also be
shown that sonorants have no laryngeal specifications. Due to this, /t/ patterns with
sonorants for processes involving laryngeal features. There is no laryngeal contrast
in the labial series. The contrast in bilabials is between the approximant /ö/ and
the nasal /m/. I will also suggest that the feature values [−] in obstruents
and [+] in sonorants are unmarked. Unmarked features are unspecified (or
inactive), which entails that obstruent stops and approximants are [0].
I concur with Prunet and Petros (1996) in assuming that labialized and
palatalized segments (round consonants, and the alveopalatal and palatal obstru-
ents of table (1)) are, for the most part, biphonemic, i.e. [f w] results from the
fusion of /f/ and /U/ (representing [u] and [w]), [c’] is the fusion of /t’/ and /I/
(representing [i] and [y]), [k’y] is the fusion of /k’/ and /I/, and so on (see
Lowenstamm 1996a and Rose 1997 for similar, but not identical, claims). Hence,
labialized and palatalized consonants are not underlying phonemes. Notice that,
phonetically, the palatalized velar obstruents [k’y, ky, gy, ç] (IPA [c’, c, j, ç]) and
coronal sonorants [\, y] have the same palatal point of articulation, as shown in
the phonetic inventory above.
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 3

Let us now turn to the following phonetic vowel inventory of Chaha:

Table 1.2. Phonetic vowel inventory of Chaha
(2) Front Central Back
Close i u
G
Close-mid e o
6
Open-mid 7 f
Open a
There is no glide vs. vowel contrast, so [i] and [y] represent /I/ while [u] and [w]
represent /U/. In most cases, the mid peripheral vowels [o, e, f, 7] are biphonemic,
i.e. [o] is the fusion of /6/ and /U/, [e] of /6/ and /I/, [f] of /a/ and /U/ and [7] of
/a/ and /I/. It is, however, impossible to derive all instances of [i] from /I/ and [e]
from /6I/. For instance, in y-a-k’it’ ‘let him trade’ and y-a-k’et’ ‘he trades’ the
vowels [i] and [e] should be analyzed as underlying. Had they been derived from
/I/ they should have palatalized either the initial velar or the final alveolar. The
same observation holds for the back vowels [u] and [o] in words such as fat’ura
‘tall’ and goga ‘skin’. Accordingly, we will accept all the vowels of (2) save [G],
which is epenthetic, to exist also in the . As mentioned in the introduction the
frequency of front, central and back vowels in a given number of words is not
proportional; central vowels are numerous while front and back vowels are
relatively rare.
The advantages of my analysis in accounting for the distribution and co-
occurrence restrictions of phonemes will become clear as we proceed. Each class
of phonemes and the processes that characterize it will be discussed in detail in
the forthcoming chapters. The present chapter is only a brief outline of the
phonemes, syllables and stems. In §1.2 I discuss obstruent segments. I motivate
a distinction between fricatives and spirants. I show some phenomena in which
/t/ functions like a sonorant and I account for this by proposing that /t/ and
sonorants have no laryngeal specification. Sonorants are discussed in §1.3. It is
claimed that they include the bilabial approximant /ö/, the bilabial nasal /m/, the
liquid /r/ and the placeless nasal /N/, the vocoids /U, I, A/ and the vowels of (2).
My assumptions about feature specification and underspecification are presented
in §1.4. I discuss syllabification in §1.5 and stem formation in §1.6. I summarize
the chapter in §1.7.
4 SOUND MUTATIONS

1.2 Obstruents

This class includes the derived stops [b, p, k], the ejective stops /t’, k’/, the voiced
stops /d, g/, the fricatives /f, s, z/, the spirant /x/ and the default consonant /t/, as
well as their labialized or palatalized allophones. I will give arguments showing
that ejectives, voiced obstruents and fricatives are phonemes with an underlying
laryngeal specification while the derived stops and /t/ lack such specification. I
also argue that the laryngeal specification of ejectives is [constricted glottis], that
of voiced obstruents is [voice] (or Halle and Stevens’ 1971 [slack vocal cords])
and that of voiceless fricatives is [spread glottis]. (See also Vaux 1998 for
analyzing voiceless fricatives as [+spread glottis].) The view that the laryngeal
specification of voiceless fricatives is [spread glottis] can account for why their
debuccalization cross linguistically results in [h], a sound commonly characterized
as [spread glottis]. In line with Lombardi (1991) I assume that laryngeal features
are single-valued, which explains why I do not write [±] before them. I extend
the assumption also for the consonantal place features and the feature [nasal].

1.2.1 The fricatives and the spirant

Following Martinet (1981), I distinguish the fricatives /f, s, z/ from the spirant /x/,
two classes of phonemes whose differences will be the subject of this subsec-
tion. But I differ from him in not classing Chaha ö with spirants because these
in my view are continuant obstruents while ö is a sonorant (see §1.3.1 for
discussion). The voiced fricative /z/ can be devoiced to [s] when geminated, e.g.
zGr6zz6r → zGr6s6r ‘has cut meat into strips’ (see Chapter 2). The velar spirant /x/
strengthens to [k] either when it is geminated, e.g. m6xx6r → m6k6r ‘has
advised’, or when it is followed in the root by a [+] radical, e.g. x6ff6r →
k6f6r ‘has separated’ (see Chapter 3). I follow Hetzron’s (1977: 51) opinion that
when z alternates with s, and x alternates with k, the first term in each is the
underlying form. In this account, the alternation is a result of losing either of the
marked features [voice] or [+] of obstruents.
In the present analysis, the spirant [x] and the stop [k] are both derived
from /x/ irrespective of the presence or absence of x/k alternation. The fact that
x and k are in complementary distribution, hence noncontrastive, is a crucial point
for this claim. I will establish their complementarity and add a few arguments to
show that /x/ is not a fricative on a par with /f, s, z/ and that /k/ is not an underlying
phoneme. See Leslau (1978: 176ff.) and McCarthy (1986a: 222) for analyses that
view [x] as deriving from an original /k/ and Petros (1995: 431–2) for the view
that some [k]’s derive from /x/. I start by commenting on the velar nature of x.
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 5

1.2.1.1 The velar nature of x

In Hetzron (1971: 196) and his subsequent studies, [x] is transcribed as a
laryngeal [h]. There are, however, arguments to the effect that the spirant
allophone of [k] is [x] (as assumed everywhere by Leslau and Polotsky) and not
[h]. First, even though it seems phonetically laryngeal in fast speech between
vowels, it normally is a velar. Second, x patterns with velars (and only with
them) in being able to labialize and palatalize, e.g. fGr6x-U → fGr6xw ‘let one
tolerate!’ and fGr6x-I → fGr6ç ‘tolerate ( )!’ Sonorants in Chaha (i.e. ö, r, n
and m, see §1.3.1 for arguments that ö is a sonorant) cannot be the second member
of a final cluster, e.g. yG-s6rGö ‘he spins’, yG-s6öGr ‘he breaks’, y6-sGn ‘of teeth’
and yG-f6rGm ‘he slices sth’. But obstruents can be the second member of a final
cluster, e.g. yG-s6rf ‘he fears’, yG-t’6ös ‘he roasts sth’ and yG-g6rz ‘he ages’. But
x can be the second member of a final cluster, e.g. yG-f6rx ‘he tolerates’, yG-s6öx
‘he preaches’, yG-t6mx ‘he dips out’ and yG-mes(G)x ‘he chews’. It then follows
that x patterns with obstruents and not with sonorants. Furthermore, roots in
Chaha do not contain two velars, and x is not found in the presence of another
velar in a root. This restriction on root structure suggests that x is a velar. If we
interpret this as one of the familiar Semitic constraints on homorganicity in roots
(see e.g. Cantineau 1946 and Greenberg 1950) it refutes the claim that the weak
allophone of k is h.

1.2.1.2 Differences between fricatives and x

Here, let us establish that x is a spirant and not a fricative. Fricatives do not
strengthen when doubled. For instance, the underlying medial geminate (CiCi)
fricatives of (3a) are not strengthened. In addition, the final copied (CiVCi#)
fricatives of (3a′) are not strengthened. But x is not found as a medial geminate
(3b) or as a final copy, (3b′).
(3) /z, s, f/ vs. /x/ as medial geminates
a. g6sa < /g6zz6A/ ‘has owned’
k’6s6r < /k’6ss6r/ ‘has erected’
k6f6t < /x6ff6t/ ‘has opened’
b. n6k6ö < /r6xx6ö/ ‘has found’
/z, s, f/ vs. /x/ as final copies
a′. yG-r6zGz < /yG-r6zGz/ ‘He dreams’
y-asGs < /yG-A6sGs/ ‘He sweeps’
yG-k’6fGf < /yG-k’6fGf/ ‘He cuts nails’
b′. y-akGk < /yG-A6xGx/ ‘He scratches’
6 SOUND MUTATIONS

That x is not found either as a medial geminate (cf. *n6x6ö) or as a final copy
(cf. *y-axGx) remains a distributional gap if we analyze it as a fricative since
doubled fricatives /z, s, f/ are found in both contexts. But if we analyze it as a
spirant its deviation from fricatives follows from the difference between frica-
tives and spirants. See Petros (1995: 431–2) for a similar explanation. In addition,
[s, f, z] can be found before another fricative, (4a), while [x] cannot, (4b).
(4) a. s6f6r ‘has measured’
yG-r6f(G)s ‘It winds’
y6-z6(f)zGf ‘Let him soak sth!’
b. k6f6t/*x6f6t ‘has opened’
yG-r6k(G)s/*yG-r6x(G)s ‘He bites’
y6-k6skGs/*y6-x6sxGs ‘Let him smash!’
It appears then that /x/ in (4b) is strengthened to [k] due to a following fricative.
That a fricative, but not x, may be followed by a fricative shows that x does not
pattern with fricatives. Even though an apparent prefricative x is found in sGx6s6x
‘has pestled sth slightly’, it should be noted that this x is the final radical of a
reduplicated –sx.
The differences between x and other fricatives also show that f functions
like the sibilants s and z — and not like x. In addition, the grouping of f with
sibilants forces us to identify a feature (or groups of features) common to f, s, z
but not x. This can be achieved by attributing [+strident] only to f, s, z, as in
Chomsky and Halle (1968: 329) and Harris (1994: 126), in which case x alone
will be [−strident]. However, see Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 180) for a
different opinion on this. So, we can assume that x alone is [+, −strident].
In this account, strengthening, be it due to doubling (3b, b′) or a following
[+] (4b), applies only to x, a class by itself which can be characterized as
[+, −strident].

1.2.2 [k] is not an underlying stop

Underlying stops are found in a stem irrespective of the continuancy specifica-

tion of a following radical whereas a simplex [k] is found only when followed
by a [+] radical. For instance, [g] need not be followed by a fricative; it can
be either followed by a nonfricative or be found at the end of the stem, (5a). But
[k] is not found in the same context, (5b). The comparison between (4b) and (5b)
shows that [x] and [k] are in complementary distribution, i.e. [k] is found before
a fricative as in (4b) whereas [x] is found elsewhere as in (5b).
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 7

(5) a. y6-gdGr ‘Let him put to sleep!’

y6-mg6r ‘Let it suppurate!’
y6-mGrg ‘Let him plaster!’
b. y6-xdGr/*y6-kdGr ‘Let him thatch!’
y6-mxGr/*y6-mkGr ‘Let him advise!’
y6-marx/*y6-mark ‘Let him capture!’
The fact that stops, but not [k], may be found before a nonfricative or at the end
of the stem suggests that [k] is not an underlying stop. Note also that the velar
stops /g, k’/ do not spirantize in Chaha, and that [k] is the only obstruent to
alternate with a spirant, e.g. m6k6r ‘has advised’ vs. y6-mxGr ‘let him advise!’ In
this respect, too, [k] does not pattern with velar (or any other) stops, which leads
me to propose that it is derived from the spirant /x/ (see Chapter 3 for a detailed
discussion on the strengthening of /x/).

1.2.3 [b, p] are not underlying stops

The sound [p] is found neither stem-initially nor stem-finally. It is found only
stem-medially as in s6p6r ‘has broken’ or as a suffix, e.g. yG-k6ft-o-p-a ‘they
open it to her detriment’. In both cases, [p] is an underlying geminate, as it
alternates with ö, e.g. y6-söGr ‘let him break!’ vs. s6p6r and yG-k6ft-ö-a ‘he opens
it to her detriment’ vs. yG-k6ft-o-p-a. So [p], as in s6p6r and yG-k6ft-o-p-a, is a
devoiced and degeminated /öö/ and not an underlying /p/. Similarly, a singleton
[b] is not found in postvocalic nor in postconsonantal positions unless the
consonant is a nasal. There are some exceptions such as b6t’bGt’ ‘stir violently!’
where the medial [b] is a stop, but see §6.3.2 (note 3) for a possible explanation.
Even though [b] is found intervocalically, as in z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’, it is an
underlying geminate. In this account, both [p] and [b] are derived allophones of
/ö/, and not an underlying voiceless and voiced stop respectively. The rules that
derive them will be discussed in §1.3.1 and Chapter 5.

1.2.4 Ejectives and voiced stops: laryngeal assimilation in verb roots

Chaha has two ejective stops /t’, k’/ and two voiced stops /d, g/. The coronals
/t’, d/ can be palatalized respectively to [c’, j] ( [tw ’, dŠ]), e.g. t’I6k’k’6m →
c’6k’6m ‘has bickered’ and dI6gg6m → j6k6m ‘has bashed’. The velars /k’, g/ can
be palatalized respectively to [k’y, gy], e.g. k’I6öö6r → k’y6p6r ‘has helped’ and
gI6tt6m → gy6t6m ‘has lent’. Besides having a secondary articulation, palatalized
velars are phonetically palatal, cf. (1). Velars can also be labialized to [k’w, gw],
8 SOUND MUTATIONS

e.g. k’U6mm6r → k’w6m6r ‘has grown up’ and gU6rr6r → gw6n6r ‘has cut’. In
contrast to palatalized velars, labialized velars do not change their velar point of
articulation. The voiced stops /d, g/ may devoice when geminated, e.g. g6dd6r →
g6t6r ‘has put to sleep’ and m6gg6r → m6k6r ‘has suppurated’ whereas /t’, k’/
remain unaffected, e.g. n6t’t’6r → n6t’6r ‘has melted’ and n6k’k’6r → n6k’6r
‘has uprooted’.
In my analysis, the true laryngeal contrast in Chaha stops is the one between
ejectives and voiced stops, i.e. /t’/ vs. /d/ and /k’/ vs. /g/. Laryngeal contrast is
found only in nonlabials, as there is no underlying /b/ or /p’/. In addition, final
/t’, k’/ differ from a final /t/ in licensing a doubly linked voiced penult, as in
z6öö6k’ → z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’ vs. zA6öö6t → zap6t ‘has lost the way’. Assum-
ing that a geminate voiced penult remains voiced only when the last radical has
laryngeal specification (to be justified in Chapter 2), I propose that ejectives are
specified [constricted glottis] while voiced obstruents are specified [voice].
Adjacent stops in a root may not differ in laryngeal specification. For
instance, adjacent ejective stops are found in a root and so are adjacent voiced
stops. This is shown in (6a, b). See also Leslau (1992: 91–92) on laryngeal
assimilation in Gurage.
(6) Laryngeal Assimilation of adjacent stops in the root
a. t’Gk’Gr ‘Hide!’
nGt’(G)k’ ‘Snatch!’
k’Gt’Gr ‘Kill!’
nGk’(G)t’ ‘Kick!’
b. dGg(G)s ‘Give a feast!’
6d(G)g ‘Make fall!’
gGdGr ‘Put to sleep!’
6g(G)d ‘Tie!’
No native root contains an ejective-voiced or voiced-ejective stop sequence, as
in hypothetical *k’GdGr, *dGk’Gr, *nGt’Gg or *nGgGt’. The ejective-voiced and voiced-
ejective sequences in words such as dak’ ‘laugh!’, a-c’ig ‘make sure!’ and t6-
c’fd ‘chat!’ are only apparent since these verbs include a medial radical /A/, /I/
and /U/ respectively. The fact that ejective-voiced or voiced-ejective stop
sequences are prohibited in a root shows that if two adjacent consonants are
stops they must have the same laryngeal specification. A comparison of the fol-
lowing Amharic and Chaha cognates shows that this generalization is correct.1

1. Comparable generalizations hold also with Geäez, cf. Geäez k’6t6l ‘killed’ vs. Chaha k’6t’6r.
Rarely, nonadjacent stops also assimilate. For example, Amharic d6rr6k’ ‘dried’ is t’6n6k’ in Chaha.
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 9

(7) Amharic Chaha

a. k’Gda gGda ‘Draw liquid!’
k’Gd6d gGdGd ‘Tear!’
mGt’ad mGdad ‘griddle’
t’6gur dGg6r ‘hair’
b. dGk’6k’ t’Gk’6k’ ‘Be crushed, grounded!’
Grg6t’ nGk’(G)t’ ‘Kick!’
magt’ mwak’(G)t’ ‘Be spoiled!’
wGd6k’ wGt’6k’ ‘Fall!’
According to the etymologies given in Leslau (1979: vol. III) Amharic represents
the older form. As can be observed from the comparison, an Amharic ejective-
voiced sequence of (7a) (as in k’Gda) becomes a voiced-voiced sequence in
Chaha (as in gGda) whereas the Amharic voiced-ejective sequence of (7b) (as in
Grg6t’) becomes an ejective-ejective sequence in Chaha (as in nGk’(G)t’). In other
words, the laryngeal specification of the second term of the Amharic sequence
is maintained for both terms in the Chaha sequence. Even though [b] in t’6b6s
‘has roasted ()’ and [m] in k’6m6s ‘has tasted ()’ are phonetically voiced
they do not trigger voicing of the initial ejective. Given that adjacent stops agree
in laryngeal specification it follows that the underlying form of the oral stop [b]
(as well as the nasal stop [m]) does not include the phonological feature [voice].

1.2.5 The segmental makeup of /t/

Despite the fact that /t/ is a typical obstruent, it differs in many ways from other
obstruents and patterns like sonorants, as we will see in this section and through-
out this book. There are also other aspects which differentiate it from sonorants.
That means that it functions like a [−] phoneme in some respects and like a
[+] in others. I believe that its dual nature originates from the fact that it is
the default consonant. I also assume that its dual nature can be expressed
naturally if /t/ is characterized as a segment unspecified for laryngeal features.
The assumption that sonorants and /t/ lack laryngeal specification puts them in
a natural class concerning processes sensitive to laryngeal features. /t/ also shares
[0] with approximants and the other obstruent stops. In this subsection, I
present the optionality of [t] to support the argument that [t] is the default
segment of Chaha.
[tG] or [t] is inserted between vowel-final subject pronouns and the verb ‘to
be’, [tG] is inserted before CC and [t] before CV, as shown in (8). (See also Ford
1991: 250.) [t(G)] cannot be inserted after the consonant-final pronouns xwGt-u ‘it
10 SOUND MUTATIONS

is him’ and çGtG-nya ‘it is her’. Even though we have an inserted [tG] after [ç] in
[açtGnç], below, it should be known that [ç] in my analysis is /xI/, which is
vowel-final.
(8) Insertion of [t(G)] between some subject pronouns and ‘to be’
Gyya-n-xw → GyyatGnxw ‘It is me’
yGna-n-d6 → yGnatGnd6 ‘It is us’
aç-n-ç → açtGnç ‘It is you ( )’
ax6-n-x6 → ax6tGnx6 ‘It is you ( )’
axma-n-xGma → axmatGnxGma ‘It is you ( )’
axu-n-xu → axutGnxu ‘It is you ( )’
xGn6ma-r-6ma → xGn6matr6ma ‘It is them ()’
xGno-r-o → xGnotro ‘It is them ()’
Subject+be+object (lit., we are us, she is her, but subject+be+subject
in Gyya-n-xw.)
Both sounds of the inserted [t(G)] are epenthetic which fill a segmentally empty
syllable position. They are null segments and have no underlying specification.

1.2.6 The treatment of borrowed plain voiceless stops ([p, t, k])

I have claimed that the sounds [k] and [p] are allophones of /x, g/ and /ö/
respectively whereas [t] lacks specification for laryngeal features. The treatment
of plain voiceless stops in borrowed words shows that they are uncommon. For
instance, in most cases, a voiceless stop [p] found in a loan either spirantizes as
in [p] → [f] or becomes voiced as in [p] → [b]. This is exemplified in (9a).
Spirantization or voicing applies as in (9a) when there is no indigenous ejective
in the series, i.e. [p] → [b/f] because Chaha has no [p’].
(9) Treatment of [p, t, k] in loans
a. [p] → [b/f]
[p]ound [b]aund
[p]etros [b]et’ros
[p]olice [f]olis
[p]ascal [f]asiga
b. [t] → [t’]
[t]rumpet [t’]Grumba
Pe[t]ros be[t’]ros
S[t]ephanos Gs[t’]ifanos
An[t]onius Gn[t’]onyos
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 11

c. [k] → [k’]
So[k]rates so[k’]rat’Gs
Lu[k]as lu[k’]as
Mar[k]os mar[k’w]6s
Ja[k]ob ya[k’w]6ö

In a series where there is an indigenous ejective (i.e. coronals and dorsals) a

borrowed voiceless stop usually becomes an ejective ([t] → [t’] and [k] → [k’])
as exemplified in (9b, c). (There are some loans such as Michael → [mGk7r] (not
*[mGk’7r]) and Thomas → [tomas] (not *[t’omas]) where the voiceless stop does
not become an ejective, possibly due to a presence of aspiration or the neighbor-
ing nasal.) Given that the sounds [t, k] are present in the phonetic inventory the
fact that borrowed [t, k] become [t’, k’] shows that plain voiceless segments are
disfavored.

1.2.7 The distribution of phonemes in affixes

Not every Chaha phoneme can appear in prefixes. Notably, obstruents other than
t are not found in prefixes. However, /t-/ alone is found in six different prefixes,
(10). (The obstruents b is found in prefixes, e.g. b6-öet ‘on/in the house’ but I
will show in §1.3.1 that this comes from an underlying approximant /ö/. Accord-
ingly, the only obstruents found in prefixes is the default /t/ and this is the only
underlying obstruent without a laryngeal specification.2 See, among others,
Calabrese (1995), McCarthy and Prince (1995) and Steriade (1995) on such
positional neutralizations.
(10) Prefixes containing [t]
a. Durative t-i-ö6r-o (while-3-eat- ) ‘while they
() eat’
b. Conjunctive t6-g6r6d (with-girl) ‘with a girl’
c. Conditional t6-ö6na (if-eat) ‘if he had eaten’
d. 2nd person sub. a-t-ö6r-o ( n o t - 2 - e a t -       ) ‘ y o u
( ) do not eat’
e. 3  subject tG-t-ö6ra (while-she-eat) ‘while she eats’
f. Reflexive nG-t-ö6ra (1-reflexive-eat) ‘let me be
sick/eaten by sickness’

2. As for the demonstrative zG(x) ‘this, these’, it is an independent word, cf. zG(x) mGs ‘this man’ vs.
zG(x) fat’ura g6m6ya ‘these tall men’.
12 SOUND MUTATIONS

On the other hand, sonorants can appear in prefixes, e.g. w6-]kGs ‘to bite’, y6-]kGs
‘let him bite’, m6-]k6s ‘stomachache (lit. ‘bite’)’, nG-]kGs ‘let me bite’. However,
notice that the prefixes include only either a vocoid or a nasal, i.e. I have not
found the approximant consonants [ö, r] in prefixes. (There is a prefix /ö-/, as in
b-i-r6k(G)s ‘as he bit’, but it is always word initial — hence occlusive.) In being
a prefix, /t/ patterns with sonorants and not with obstruents. In my view,
obstruents are absent in prefixes because prefixes do not license laryngeal
specifications. We will see next that sonorants (and /t/) have no laryngeal
specification. These segments can be found in prefixes whereas none of the
phonemes that are shown to have laryngeal specification are found there.3

1.3 Sonorants

The underlying sonorants of Chaha include the bilabial approximant /ö/, the
bilabial nasal /m/, the liquid /r/, the placeless nasal /N/, the labiodorsal vocoid
/U/, the palatal vocoid /I/ and the vowels. There is also the radical /A/, represent-
ing original laryngeals and pharyngeals (as in /gGfGA/ → [gGfa] ‘push sth!’),
which I categorize with both fricatives and sonorants due to its dual characteris-
tics. In my analysis, sonorants are unspecified for laryngeal features, i.e. [voice]
in them (in contrast with [voice] in obstruents) is unmarked, which, accordingly,
is inactive in phonological processes. (See Itô, Mester and Padgett and the
references therein for inertness of [voice] in sonorants.)
The first justification for proposing that sonorants are unspecified for
laryngeal features was based on their distribution in prefixes. The second
argument for the proposal was based on Laryngeal Assimilation of adjacent stops
in the root (see §1.2.4). The third argument is based on whether the prefix /t/
(see (10) for its different meanings) assimilates to a following stem-initial
radical (C1) or not. Even though the different /t/ prefixes of (10) assimilate I will
take the reflexive prefix /t/ to demonstrate the assimilation and show how this
supports the claim that sonorants are unspecified for laryngeal features.

3. Unlike in prefixes, we find different types of obstruents in suffixes. For instance, a fricative is
found as in the auxiliary -w6 ‘can, may, will’ (see Petros 1996a: 148) and the focus -w, e.g. Gyya-w 6kkwa
6röat a-m-b6ra ‘I-focus today dinner neg.-I-eat’ ‘I will not eat dinner today’. (The -w can be attached
to every word of the sentence.) We also have -w in words like x6da-w ‘please ( )’, x6d-o-w
‘please ( )’ etc. The voiced stop [d] is found in the 1pl. object tG-k6ft-Gn-d6 ‘you ( )
open (it for) us’. However, no ejective is not found in suffixes.
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 13

When a prefix /t/ and C1 of a stem are adjacent, the former often totally or
partially assimilates to the latter.4 (The assimilated two consonants have a single
ejective or fricated release.) Total Assimilation obligatorily applies when C1 is a
coronal stop, (11a). Partial (i.e. Laryngeal) Assimilation applies optionally (there
is no assimilation in slow speech) when C1 is a peripheral (labial or dorsal) stop
or a coronal fricative, (11b). But no assimilation occurs if C1 is /r/, /U/, /ö/ or
/m/, (11c). In other words, /t/ assimilates to C1 but only if C1 is an obstruent.
(11) The reflexive prefix in noninitial position
a. Obligatory Total Assimilation when C1 is a coronal stop
yG-t’-t’aö6t’ not *yG-t-t’aö6t’ ‘hold each other’
yG-d-d6m6d not *yG-t-d6m6d ‘join ()’
yG-c’-c’ab6k’ not *yG-t-c’ab6k’ ‘press each other’
yG-j-j6n6g not *yG-t-j6n6g ‘stuck in the throat’
yG-c-caf6r not *yG-t-caf6r ‘give a mouthful to each
other’
b. Optional Laryngeal Assimilation (in fast speech) when C1 is
any other obstruent
yG-t’-k’an6m or yG-t-k’an6m ‘insult ()’
yG-d-g6m6s or yG-t-g6m6s ‘cut off into chunks ()’
yG-d-z6m6d or yG-t-z6m6d ‘stretch ()’
yG-d-Š6p6r or yG-t-Š6p6r ‘return ()’
c. No assimilation when C1 is a sonorant
yG-t-r6k’6r not *yG-d-r6k’6r ‘be uprooted’
yG-t-w6t6r not *yG-d-w6t6r ‘be drawn tight’
yG-t-ö6n6s not *yG-d-ö6n6s ‘topple ()’
yG-t-man6x not *yG-d-man6x ‘give up, be captured’
If t- and C1 share the same values for [] and Place they must also share
laryngeal features, which triggers obligatory Total Assimilation, (11a). So the
Total Assimilation in (11a) can be viewed as spreading of the Root node of C1
to t- whereas Laryngeal Assimilation in (11b) may be expressed as an optional
spreading of the Laryngeal node.
The fact that /ö/ in (11c) cannot trigger voicing of /t/ shows that /ö/ patterns
with the sonorants (/r/, /U/ and /m/). Note that the stem-initial voiced obstruents

4. The reflexive /t-/ and C1 are not adjacent in initial position. They are separated by /6/, e.g. t6-
t’6b6s ‘has roasted ()’. Here, no assimilation occurs between /t/ and /t’/ due to lack of adjacency.
But no vowel intervenes in medial positions (where laryngeal assimilation occurs), e.g. yG-t-t’6b6s →
yG-t’-t’6b6s ‘it roasts’.
14 SOUND MUTATIONS

in (11b) can trigger voicing of /t/, and in this respect /ö/ does not pattern with
them. On the other hand, /t/ does not assimilate with a stem-initial radical in
continuancy, cf. *yG-z-z6m6d. Similarly, /t/ does not assimilate in Place with
dorsal stops, cf. yG-d-g6m6s (not *yG-g-g6m6s), from (11b). (Such assimilation
occurs in Amharic, e.g. yG-b-b6dd6r-al ‘he borrows’ and yG-g-g6dd6l-al ‘he will
be killed’.) That /t/ in Chaha does not assimilate in [] and Place suggests
that it is specified for these features.
The fact that stem-initial voiced obstruents, but not sonorants, trigger
voicing of the reflexive /t-/ receives a straightforward account if we assume that
sonorants have no laryngeal specification, and that Laryngeal Assimilation occurs
when the trigger is specified. This distinguishes sonorants from voiced obstru-
ents. In cases where the prefix does not share a laryngeal feature with the initial
radical, as in (11c), I assume that it has no laryngeal specification, i.e. /t/ has no
Laryngeal node. The unspecified nature of /t/ also implies that we spread the
Laryngeal node from an initial radical to /t/ without having to delink it. This
assimilation is consequently feature-building, not feature-changing.
The fourth argument for proposing that sonorants are unspecified for
laryngeal features is based on the penult voicing difference between m6gg6r →
m6k6r ‘has suppurated’ (from –mgr) and n6gg6d → n6g6d ‘has touched sth’ (from
–rgd). This will be discussed in detail only in Chapter 2. For now, I will only
mention that the final sonorant r of m6k6r does not license the preceding
underlying geminate voiced obstruent (/gg/) to remain voiced so penult devoicing
and degemination occur in m6k6r. But the final obstruent d of n6g6d licenses the
preceding /gg/ to remain voiced so penult degemination occurs without devoicing
in n6g6d. The difference between stem-final sonorants and obstruents also
follows if we assume that sonorants are unspecified for laryngeal features whereas
obstruents, whether they are contrastive for [voice] or not, are laryngeally specified.
The fifth argument is also related to geminate devoicing cases such as
m6gg6r → m6k6r ‘has suppurated’. Here, the doubly linked [voice] of gg is
unlicensed and therefore delinks. This results in the devoicing of g to k. Now,
consider the verb gI6mm6r → gy6m6r ‘has trimmed a basket with hide’. If m is
[voice] it cannot retain this feature when geminated since a doubly linked [voice]
in a similar context is unlicensed. So we will expect a devoiced nasal m® . But,
such devoicing does not happen, showing that m in gy6m6r, as well as elsewhere,
is not specified for[voice]. However, as we will see next and in §5.3.1, an
occlusivized /ö/, i.e. [b], is [voice] and loses this feature in a context of
devoicing. When /ö/ is realized as [−] it becomes [voice], as in /ö/ → [b],
which explains why /ö/ devoices in a devoicing context.
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 15

The sonorants of Chaha differ from obstruents also in regard to the feature
[]. For instance, approximants do not function like fricatives and spirants.
In contrast with obstruents, vocoids do not trigger the strengthening of a
preceding /x/, cf. yG-ö6xGI → yG-ö6ç ‘he cries’ vs. yG-r6xGs → yG-r6kGs ‘he bites’
nor can they trigger vocalization of a preceding nasal, cf. a-N-x6t6r → ãx6t6r ‘he
has not thatched a house’ vs. a-N-U6t6r → ambw6t6r ‘has not drawn tight’ (see
§5.4). The difference between approximants and continuant obstruents can be
expressed naturally if we assume that [+] in sonorants is the unmarked
value and is unspecified in them (see §3.8).

1.3.1 The bilabials are sonorants

I propose that [ö], [b] and [p] are in complementary distribution and that they all
derive from a bilabial approximant /ö/. So, there is no underlying bilabial
obstruent. The only bilabial phoneme with which /ö/ enters in opposition is /m/,
as /U/ and /f/ are not bilabials. This opposition persists in all contexts, as shown
in (12). /m/ is also the only underlying nasal found in both stems and affixes (as
no /N/ is found in verb stems). Note that /ö/ and /m/ can be rounded to
[w, bw, pw] and [mw] respectively.
(12) Opposition between /ö/ and /m/
a. b6k6r ‘has lacked’
yG-ö6xGr ‘he lacks’
k’6p6r ‘has planted’
bGt’6b6t’ ‘has stirred’
gy6t6ö ‘has placed diagonally’
b. m6k6r ‘has advised’
yG-m6xGr ‘he advises’
k’6m6r ‘has killed louse’
mGt’6m6t’ ‘has rotten’
gy6t6m ‘has lent’
In my analysis, the contrast between the two is expressed by the feature [nasal],
i.e. /m/ is [nasal] while /ö/ is not. Even though /ö/ is voiced and continuant it
differs from voiced fricatives such as /z/ in not functioning as a [voice] phoneme.
Similarly, /m/ is voiced and stop. However, it differs from voiced stops such as
/d/ and /g/ in that it does not function as a [voice] phoneme. The feature [voice]
is phonologically inactive in /ö/ and /m/ due to the fact that they are sonorants.
Hetzron (1977: 37–8) states: “ö is phonemic in Chaha, Gura, Gyeto and
Ennemor only … both b and ö may occur intervocalically (e.g. in the verb
16 SOUND MUTATIONS

t’6b6t’6- ‘he seized/held’ vs. yGs6öGr ‘he breaks’) which makes the opposition b/ö
phonemic.” This view is accepted by Johnson (1975: 27, note 3). In my view, the
fact that two sounds can be found intervocalically at the surface is not a suffi-
cient argument to claim that they are in opposition. In fact, as we will see in
§2.7.2, b in t’6b6s is a simplified geminate which does not devoice because the
final radical is an obstruent other than t whereas ö in yG-s6öGr is not a geminate.
So, b in t’6b6s is a voiced stop because it is a simplified geminate. The /ö/ in
t’6ö6t’ is also a simplified geminate which remains [ö] as the only exception to
occlusivization (/öö/ → [b], see Chapter 5). While the distribution of [b] and [ö]
is predictable in all instances, one exception (which does not even form a
minimal pair) is insufficient to claim that the two sounds are in opposition.
Because /ö, m/ are sonorants, the feature [voice] is inactive in them and this
feature is not needed to express the contrast between the two. One assumes that
/z/ must be [voice] because this value is needed to express the phonological
contrast between /z/ and /s/. So, the phonology requires that /z/ contains the
feature [voice]. Similarly, /t’/ must be [constricted glottis] because this feature
expresses the phonological contrast between /t’/ and /t/. However, no such
contrast exists between /ö/ and /m/ (the only bilabials), so the phonology does
not require that they be [voice]. What is contrastive in them is whether they are
approximant or nasal and the phonology is required to make this distinction,
which can be achieved by the feature [nasal]. Accordingly, there is no reason for
/ö/ and /m/ to be specified for [voice]. That /m/ is [nasal] is not a controversial
issue. Therefore, I will concentrate on the [0voice] nature of /ö/. ([0voice] can be
seen as the absence of the Laryngeal node.)
I have claimed that /ö/ as well as its elsewhere allophone [ö] is a bilabial
approximant and not a fricative or a spirant whereas [b] and [p] are its occlusiv-
ized allophones. As an approximant, /ö/ is voiced but its feature [voice] is
redundant and phonologically inactive. So, [voice] is absent when it is a
[+] segment, as shown in (13a). An occlusivization rule changes the
[+, +, Labial] phoneme /ö/ to the [−, voice] sound [b] (see
Chapter 5 for details). Here, [voice] is active due to [−], as in (13b), but
[voice] delinks in (13c), resulting in a voiceless stop. Such delinking applies to
any voiced obstruent when the context for devoicing is satisfied.
(13) The allophones of /ö/
a. Root [+] = [ö]
b. Root [−] = [b]
|
[voice]
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 17

c. Root [−] = [p]

=|=
[voice]
While [ö] (as well as /ö/) is [+] the stops [b, p] are [−]. Accordingly,
[b] and [p] form a class ([−]) that excludes [ö] whereas [ö] and [b], although
both are voiced phonetically, do not form a class that excludes [p] since [ö] is an
approximant and does not contain [voice]. That [b] and [p] are [−] and that
[b], but not [p], includes [voice] is a standard position. This is why I will give
only arguments for the claim that [ö] is [+]. (This is in addition to the
arguments discussed so far.)
All voiced obstruents of Chaha have a laryngeally contrastive counterpart,
as in d/t’, g/k’ and z/s whereas /ö/ does not have one. Instead, it has a contrastive
nasal counterpart /m/, cf. (12). When there is no laryngeal contrast in a series of
obstruents, we normally expect to find only the voiceless ones. For instance,
Chaha has /f, x/, but not /v, >/. This is in conformity with the markedness restric-
tions in which the presence of a segment with the marked feature [voice] implies
the presence of a segment without this feature whereas the inverse relation does
not hold. However, if we analyze ö as a voiced obstruent, it alone will be
without a laryngeal contrast. This would be in contradiction with the markedness
restrictions. If we analyze it as a sonorant, on the other hand, it will enjoy the
characteristic common to sonorants of having a nasal counterpart, and not having
a voiceless one. This pairing groups it with sonorants, which are laryngeally
unspecified.
The other argument that ö is a sonorant comes from the sonority scale, in
which ö is more sonorous than any obstruent. (Hayward 1988: 161 equates it
with z but does so without justification). For instance, continuant obstruents,
(14a), but not sonorants, (14b), can be the second member of a final cluster
(right column). Note that concerning the sonority scale the spirant x does not
pattern with ö but with fricatives.
(14) Continuant obstruents vs. sonorants as a second member of a word-
final cluster
a. yG-r6gGf or yG-r6gf ‘It falls down’
y-agGz or y-agz ‘He helps’
yG-r6kGs or yG-r6ks ‘He bites’
yG-ö6tGx or yG-ö6tx ‘He uproots’
b. yG-g6dGr not *yG-g6dr ‘He puts to sleep’
yG-s6dGö not *yG-s6dö ‘He curses’
yG-f6t’Gm not *yG-f6t’m ‘He closes’
18 SOUND MUTATIONS

By not appearing as the second member of a word-final cluster, ö patterns with

the sonorants r and m, and not with continuant obstruents. Furthermore, r can be
the first member of a final sonorant-obstruent cluster, e.g. yG-g6rz ‘he ages’, but
it must be separated by the epenthetic vowel G from a final sonorant, e.g. yG-
k’6rGm ‘he insults’, not *yG-k’6rm, and yG-t’6rGr ‘it clarifies’, not *yG-t’6rr. In this
respect too, ö functions like the sonorant m, and not like the voiced fricative z,
e.g. yG-s6rGö ‘he spins’, not *yG-s6rö. Conversely, two final fricatives may be
separated by G, (15a), while a sonorant-fricative cluster cannot, (15b).
(15) Fricatives vs. sonorants as a first member of a word-final cluster
a. yG-r6fGs or yG-r6fs ‘It winds’
yG-mesGx or yG-mesx ‘He chews’
yG-w6zGf or yG-w6zf ‘He procrastinates’ (< )
b. *yG-g6rGz but yG-g6rz ‘He gets old’
*yG-t’6öGs but yG-t’6ös ‘He roasts sth’
*yG-g6mGs but yG-g6ms ‘He breaks off in chunks’
The data in (15a) show that a final obstruent-obstruent cluster can be syllabified
as CGC or CC whereas the final sonorant-obstruent cluster in (15b) can only be
syllabified as CC (CGC in the left column of (15b) is illicit). Here, too, ö
patterns with sonorants because it cannot be separated from a final continuant
obstruent by G.
We have seen, cf. (4b) vs. (5b), that the spirant x strengthens when followed
by a [+] radical. Had ö been a spirant on a par with x, we would have
observed the same type of root structure constraint. For instance, ö should have
strengthened before a fricative and it should have remained a spirant elsewhere.
But this is not what happens, ö can be a continuant before a fricative, e.g. yG-d6ös
‘it enlarges’ and it can be a stop before a nonfricative, e.g. b6t6r ‘has become
first’. In this respect, ö parallels the sonorant r, to be discussed below, and not
the obstruent x. This also lends support to the claim that ö is a sonorant and not
a spirant. But see Petros (1995: 429) for an earlier, different, opinion on this.
Another argument that ö is a sonorant comes from a class of verbs with a
doubled final radical (C16C2C3GC3 in the Jussive), exemplified in (16) below. The
common characteristic of these verbs is that their C2 is, and must be, a sonorant:
r in (16a), m in (16b) and ö in (16c).
(16) Some verbs with C16C2C3GC3 Jussive pattern
a. d6rzGz ‘Be very blunt!’
s6rtGt ‘Feel ill at ease always!’
g6rdGd ‘Cut in big logs!’
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 19

b. t’6msGs ‘Make hop dough!’

x6mtGt ‘Be physically underdeveloped!’
k’6mt’Gt’ ‘Wrinkle!’
c. G]-k6örGr ‘Roll!’
g6özGz ‘Become numb!’
k’6özGz ‘Be inert, blind!’
The verbs listed here show that every sonorant consonant can appear in C2 of the
C16C2C3GC3 pattern whereas no hypothetical verb such as *s6xt’Gt’ in which C2
is an obstruent is found. See also Prunet and Petros (1996), examples (5a), (11b),
(13b) and (16b) for an exhaustive list of 23 local-movement verbs with a similar
pattern, in which there is no verb with an obstruent in C2. (The apparent counter-
examples such as (GN-)wGfarGr ‘roll up!’ is derived from w6f6r ‘has covered’, which
in my view derives from –sIfr.) This matching of ö with sonorants in templatic
positions again supports my claim that ö is a sonorant.
That ö is [+] is also supported by verbs with an Imperfective
C1GC2GC2 Jussive pattern such as sGkGk ‘drive a peg!’ Here, the underlying
[+] of the spirant /x/ delinks and that explains its strengthening. However,
ö does not strengthen in similar contexts, e.g. k’GöGö ‘shaves!’, not *k’GbGb. In
this respect, ö parallels the approximant r, e.g. gGrGr ‘extract cheese!’, not *gGnGn.
Moreover, x strengthens neither in word-initial position, e.g. x6p6ö ‘has encir-
cled’, nor in post-N position, e.g. y6-]x6ö ‘let him find!’ whereas ö strengthens
in both positions, e.g. b6ta ‘has taken’ and y6-mba ‘let him split!’, in which case
it parallels r, e.g. n6pa ‘has split’ and a-n-n6pa ‘has not split’. These facts show
that ö is an approximant like r and not a spirant like x.
Two tokens of /r/ can be nonidentical in a stem. For instance, [r] in k’Gr6n6f
‘has struck many things down’ is a nonnasal because it is simplex whereas [n]
is a nasal because it is an underlying geminate. On the contrary, two tokens of
/x/ must be identical in a stem, e.g. y6-tG-mxax6r-o ‘let them take each other’s
advice!’ and t6-mkak6r-o-m ‘they have taken each other’s advice’. The expected
output from the latter example is *t6-mxak6r-o-m since the first [k] is simplex.
But this is not what we obtain. We can observe that the approximant /r/ does not
preserve its identity in a stem whereas the obstruent /x/ does. Now, consider the
functioning of /ö/ in this regard. In t’Gö6b6s ‘has stir-fried sth’, the first token of
/ö/ is an approximant because it is simplex whereas its second token is a stop
because it is an underlying geminate. This shows that, in preserving identity for
continuancy, /ö/ patterns with the approximant /r/, and not with the obstruent /x/.
The labials /U/ and /ö/, and only them, become occlusives after /N/, e.g.
a-N-U6t6r → ambw6t6r ‘has not drawn tight’ and a-N-ö6t6r → amb6t6r ‘has not
20 SOUND MUTATIONS

become first’ (see §5.4). The patterning of /ö/ with /U/ indicates that /ö/ is not a
fricative. Moreover, /ö/ alternates with /U/ in many contexts. When labialized, /ö/
always becomes [w], e.g. yG-s6wr-k6 ‘one breaks you ( )’ and y6-swGr-k6
‘let one break you ( )!’ from –sör whereas neither /f/ nor /x/ alternates
with [w]. That /ö/ alternates with [w] also parallels the alternation between /r/
and [y] and supports the claim that /ö/ is a sonorant. In addition, Hetzron and
Habte Mariam (1966: 21) show that, like sonorants and unlike obstruents, /ö/
does not block the movement of nasalization in the closely related Gurage
language Inor. For instance, in words like ỹı̃--r̃6̃ö̃ı̃-r̃ ‘he lives’, nasalization starts
from the stem-initial /r̃/ and nasalizes every sonorant segment of the word. /ö/ is
nasalized even though continuant obstruents block nasalization the way /x/ does
in ỹı̃--r̃6̃xGö ‘he finds’. Some of the properties of fricatives, /x/, /ö/ and /r/ are
summarized below for comparison (  = no, – = yes).
Table 1.3. Some properties of fricatives, /x/, /ö/ and /r/
(17) Fricatives /x/ /ö/ /r/
I. Strengthen when geminated (CiCi)   – – –
II. Strengthen when doubled (CiVCi#)   –    
III. Strengthen before a fricative   –    
IV. Have dissimilar allophones in a stem –   – –
V. Strengthen a preceding /x/ – –    
VI. Be Cj in a cluster CiCj# – –    
VII. Be separated by G from a final obstruent – –    
VIII.Have laryngeal specification – –    
IX. Undergo initial strengthening (#C)     – –
X. Undergo post-N strengthening     – –
XI. Be C2 of C16C2C3GC3 (cf. (16))     – –
XII Vocalize ([w/u, y/i])     – –
XIII.Nasalize (Inor [ö̃, r̃])     – –
XIV.Found in prefixes        

Fricatives and /x/ differ in the first four properties (/ö/ and /r/ are either similar
to fricatives or /x/ in this regard). Based on this, I distinguished fricatives and
/x/. But fricatives and /x/ share the remaining ten properties and differ from /ö/
and /r/ in this regard. Due to this I categorized them in the class of continuant
obstruents. On the other hand, /ö/ and /r/ share all the properties listed above and
each differs in eleven (out of fourteen) properties from fricatives and in twelve
properties from /x/. These, among others (to be added as we proceed), lead me
to put /ö/ and /r/ together in one class — approximant consonants.
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 21

Phonetically, ö is an approximant. It is produced by approximating the lips

(as when blowing slowly with no puffing sound) but without bringing them into
contact to create friction (see Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 232 for a discus-
sion of such sounds). A similar remark about ö in Amharic is made in Cohen
(1970: 31) “souvent, surtout entre deux voyelles, le relâchement est tel qu’il ne
se produit pas d’occlusion; on entends alors la spirante bilabiale sonore b̄ [my
ö]” but questioned in Leslau (1992: 625) who says this is “to be reexamined.”
My claim extends Cohen’s proposal in that [ö] is always produced without
friction. In addition, a phonetic experiment is conducted to see the similarities
and difference that ö shows with other approximants and continuant obstruents.
The Spectrograms clearly showed that ö is much more similar to the approximant
w than to the labiodental fricative f, the voiced fricative z or the spirant x.
The approximation of the lips and the [Labial] specification of /ö/ make it
a bilabial approximant. That it is phonetically continuant and voiced follows
from the fact that it is an approximant and therefore need not be specified. This
may explain why [voice] in ö is absent, as it does not license a preceding doubly
linked [voice], e.g. s6dd6ö → s6t6ö (not *s6d6ö) ‘has cursed’ vs. agg6d → ag6d
(not *ak6d) ‘has tied’. It does not trigger voicing assimilation either, e.g. yG-t-
ö6n6s (not *yG-d-ö6n6s) ‘it is being toppled’. So far, I have established that ö in
Chaha is a sonorant — more precisely, an approximant.

1.3.2 The liquid /r/ and the nasal /N/

The liquid vs. nasal contrast is neutralized in stems in favor of the liquid /r/,
which nasalizes when it is word-initial, doubly linked or a penultimate coda (see
Chapter 4). Even though there are some stems with surface minimal pairs it will
be shown in §4.8 that their contrast can be analyzed as one of length. A surface
minimal pair of [r] and [n] is also found in suffixes, e.g. yG-k6ftG-r-a ‘he opens
it for her’ vs. yG-k6ftG-n-a ‘he opens (the door for) her’. However, I will argue in
§9.4.4 that [n] in the second example is a nasalized and simplified /rr/. If my
arguments are correct it follows that the above contrast is one of length and is
not phonemic. In addition, I have not found a prefix containing an [r]. This also
suggests that r and n are not contrastive but the phoneme found in prefixes is an
/N/, instead of the /r/ found in stems and suffixes. The nasal in the prefixes
function as a geminate in some respects so it is possible to see it as a geminate
nasal or liquid (see §4.9.3). However, I will postulate an /N/ with a limited
distribution, i.e. only in prefixes (and in its geminated form) and a handful of
nouns discussed in §4.8, as a remnant of the Proto Ethio-Semitic alveolar nasal.
22 SOUND MUTATIONS

When a stem-final /r/ is followed by a suffix-initial /r/ they yield the third
allophone [ll] of /r/.
The sound r behaves like an approximant both phonetically and phonological-
ly. For instance, it can be palatalized as in sGöGr-I → sGöGy → sGöi ‘break (
)!’ Nasalized allophones of /r/ agree in place with the following obstruent, re-
sulting in [m/X/n/^/\/]]. The nasal absorbs I, a trigger of palatalization, but it does
not become palatal phonetically, t’6n-I → t’6n (not *t’6^) ‘give birth ( )!’
In my view, like all other sonorants, /r/ and /N/ are unspecified for [voice].

1.3.3 The high vocoids /U/ and /I/

Chaha has two glides/vowels /U/ and /I/. These are very rarely realized as [w/u]
and [y/i]. Mostly, /U/ floats leftward to labialize the leftmost labializable conso-
nant (labial or velar) and to palatalize an adjacent coronal obstruent (see §7.2.2
and Petros 1996b: 170–1). Because /U/ is labiodorsal, its labial part labializes
whereas its dorsal part palatalizes, e.g. f6s6U → f w6w6 ‘he has farted’. Further-
more, a post-N /U/ surfaces as an obstruent [bw], e.g. a-N-U6t’a → ambw6t’a ‘he
has not gone out’ (§5.4.3). Noninitial independent [w]’s can also be found as in
yG-s6ör-U-k6 → yG-s6wr-k6 ‘one breaks you ( )’, but they are derived from
ö(…)U → öw → w. When immediately preceded by the vowels [G], [6] or [a], an
independent [w] may fuse with them to form the back round vowels [u], [o] and
[f] respectively.
An independent [y] is found only in word-initial affixes such as yG-s6ör-6ma
(3-break- ) ‘they () break’. Normally, /I/ floats leftward to palatalize an
immediately preceding coronal or a leftmost velar. But when an initial radical is
not palatalizable, a second-radical /I/ floats rightward to palatalize a third-radical
velar, e.g. mI6gg6r → m6ky6r ‘has burnt sth’. Noninitial independent [y]’s are
found, e.g. yG-sy6 ‘he buys’ and tG-k6ft-o-y-6ma ‘you () open (the door) for
them ()’, but they are derived from r(…)I → ry → y. When immediately
preceded by the vowels [G], [6] or [a], an independent [y] may fuse with them to
form the front vowels [i], [e] and [7] respectively.

1.3.4 Vowels

The vowels /G/, /6/ and /a/ are central. They are basic vowels which, combined
with /U/ and /I/, can produce the back and the front vowels (see Polotsky
1951: 18). They may serve as a trace of an etymological radical, Gsat ‘fire’ from
–‘st, 6rGö ‘milk!’ and an6ö ‘has milked’, from –h» lb. The close central [G] is
epenthetic whereas the mid central [6] is underlying. While [a] is central phoneti-
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 23

cally it sometimes behaves as if it includes /I/. I know of two such cases. The
first is that it alternates with palatalization, e.g. xar ‘has known’ vs. yG-çGr ‘he
knows’ (see §3.4.1 for a discussion). Second, it alternates with [y6], e.g. ag6d
‘has tied’ vs. at-y6g6d ‘has caused to be tied’. Due to these, I place it with both
front and central vowels, in the vowel chart given in (2). This can also be
interpreted as saying that there are two underlying sources for [a].

1.4 Feature specification and underspecification

In this book I will assume Radical Underspecification in which the unmarked

feature value of a class of segments is phonologically unspecified. Crucially, I
will accept that laryngeal features are monovalent and that sonorants and plain
voiceless stops have no laryngeal specification. The following redundancy rules
assign features for segments that lack laryngeal specification.
(18) [−] → [stiff vocal cords]
[+] → [voice]
In addition, approximants and plain voiceless stops are unspecified for continu-
ancy. The following redundancy rules assign features for segments that lack
continuancy specification. Notice, however, that [+] in obstruents and
[−] in sonorants are marked values so they are specified in .
(19) [−] → [−]
[+] → [+]
These redundancy rules are used for phonetic interpretation only, i.e. none of the
features introduced by these rules are mentioned in the phonology of Chaha.

1.5 Syllabification

1.5.1 Syllable structure

Phonetically, Chaha has light (CV), heavy (CVC) and super heavy (CVCC)
syllables, exemplified in (20a–c), respectively. There is no CV vs. CVV contrast
for the same vowel but vowels normally shorten as we go from a to i/u. A super
heavy syllable can be found only word-finally. A syllable without onset can be
found word-initially, e.g. 6rc ‘boy’. Most word-initial vowels are central (G, 6, a)
and no word begins with i or u. (Leslau 1992: 120 cites ur6m but according to
24 SOUND MUTATIONS

me this should be wGr6m ‘truth’.) Onsetless syllable can also be found suffix-
initially if the suffix begins with a central vowel, e.g. t’7-6na ‘my sheep’, see
§1.7. (But see Ford 1991 for a different view.)
(20) a. xi ‘Dig a hole!’ (  from –xrI)
gGöa ‘Enter!’ (  from –göA)
b. mac ‘Get mad!’ (  from –mAtI)
s6mbGt ‘Sojourn!’ (  from –sröt)
c. z6\gy ‘Speak!’ (  from –zrgI)
marx ‘Capture!’ (  from –mArx)
The Imperatives of (20a) derive from triradical roots whereas those of (20b, c)
derive from quadriradical roots. Yet, the Imperatives in (20a) as well as those in
(20b, c) do not have a uniform syllable structure. This shows that, as argued for
in Prunet (1996a), the surface syllable structure does not really tell us much
about the underlying content of Gurage words, their minimal and maximal
weight, and so on. These and other similar problems have in fact led some
specialists of Ethiopian Semitic languages to analyze /A/ as a consonant (e.g.
Prunet 1996b), peripheral vowels as long underlyingly (e.g. Lowenstamm 1991)
and consonants with secondary articulation as biphonemic (e.g. Prunet and Petros
1996). Due to these discrepancies in the surface syllable structure, I will base my
analysis mainly on the root segments rather than their surface syllable structure.

1.5.2 Stress

Main stress in Chaha falls on the penultimate syllable. Whether this syllable is
closed, (21a), or open, (21b), makes no difference. Similarly, the weight of the
final syllable does not matter.
(21) The site of main stress
a. y6¢öd6r ‘Let him be first’
néçni ‘(You ( )) come for me’
tF¢- söGr ‘Let her break sth’
b. y6ts6¢ö6r ‘Let him/it break’
y6ts6ö6¢ro ‘Let them () break’
y6ts6ö6r6¢ma ‘Let them () break’
The main diagnosis to identify the stressed nucleus is to try to lengthen (with
exaggeration — as in singing) just one vowel from the word.
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 25

1.5.3 Epenthetic vowel

The epenthetic vowel in Chaha is [G]. In general, it is used to separate an initial

cluster of two distinct consonants (or glides), a final cluster of two consonants
when the second member is a sonorant and a cluster of three or more consonants
in any position. (See Rose 1997 for detailed discussion of epenthesis in Chaha
and other Ethiopian Semitic languages.)
The data in (22) exemplify initial clusters separated by [G]. In fast speech,
especially before sonorants, the [G] is hardly audible. This led some researchers
(see e.g. Leslau 1992: 120) to accept initial Cr clusters, which I do not accept.
(22) wGy6 / yGw6d6r6 ‘honey / mat (to preserve and eat food)
nGw6r-i / wGr6j-i ‘Let one live! / Descend!’
nGm6d / mGra ‘Love! / Fill!’
fGta / tGfa ‘Untie! / Slap!’
t’Gk’Gr / k’Gt’Gr ‘Hide! / Kill!’
A medial cluster of any two adjacent consonants or glides (including the mirror
image) is allowed. Thus, no [G] is inserted to break the medial clusters in (23).
(23) t6-wy6 / wayw6t ‘with honey / name of a female deity’
yG-s6rö-o / yG-s6ör-o ‘They () spin / break’
yG-f6rd-o / yG-g6dr-o ‘They () judge / put to sleep’
yG-k6ft-o / yG-k6tf-o ‘They () open / hash’
yG-r6t’k’-o / yG-r6k’t’-o ‘They () snatch / kick’
On the other hand, medial clusters of two consonants are separated by [G] if they
are not adjacent in the , as the second column in (24) shows.5
(24) a. 6m6r a-tG-m6r (not *atm6r) ‘(Don’t) believe!’
wGr6d a-tG-r6d (not *atr6d) ‘(Don’t) descend!’
b. nG-m6r a-nG-m6r (not *amm6r) ‘Let me (not) believe!’
nG-r6d a-nG-r6d (not *ann6d) ‘Let me (not) descend!’

5. Notice that the stems -m6r and -r6d derive from –Amr and –wrd, respectively, i.e. m and r are not
the initial segments of the respective stem in . Normally, (i.e. when these segments are stem initial
in ), the second person /t-/ forms a cluster with a right-adjacent onset /m/, e.g. a-t-mec’ (negation-
2-wash) ‘you ( ) do not wash’. On the other hand, the first person /N-/ forms a geminate with
a right-adjacent onset /m/ and /r/, as shown by the respective examples a-m-mec’ (negation-1-wash)
‘I do not wash’ and a-n-n6c’ (negation-1-snatch out) ‘I do not snatch out’.
26 SOUND MUTATIONS

These data also show that the C1 position remains even when the segment
associated with it deletes. Note also that the w of –wrd does not delete when
followed by a vowel, as in wGr6d ‘descend!’ and yG-w6rd ‘he descends’. This
shows that [G] in (24) precedes the deleted stem-initial segment (if not, w would
not delete). See §7.5.2 on w-deletion.
Word-final clusters of two distinct consonants are allowed as long as the
second member is an obstruent, as in the first column of (25a, b). Word-final
clusters are broken when the two members are the same, (25c), or the second
member is a sonorant, (25d). The contrast between the second column in (25a)
and (25b) shows that a final cosonant-obstruent cluster can also be separated,
(25a), unless the first member is more sonorous than the second member, as in
(25b), in the sonority scale where sonorants > continuant obstruents > stops.
(25) Word-final clusters of two consonants
a. y-afs or y-afGs ‘He scoops’
yG-k6tf or yG-k6tGf ‘He hashes’
yG-z6gd or yG-z6gGd ‘He remembers’
b. yG-k6ft not *yG-k6fGt ‘He opens’
yG-f6rd not *yG-f6rGd ‘He judges’
yG-g6rz not *yG-g6rGz ‘He ages’
c. *yG-g6dd but yG-g6dGd ‘He pierce’
*yG-k’6ff but yG-k’6fGf ‘He clips’
*yG-m6rr but yG-m6rGr ‘It is bitter’
d. *yG-k’6rm but yG-k’6rGm ‘He insults’
*yG-k’6ör but yG-k’6öGr ‘He buries, plants’
*yG-s6rö but yG-s6rGö ‘He spins’
Looking at the second column of (25) reveals that only fricative-fricative, stop-
fricative and stop-stop word-final clusters (i.e. (25a)) can optionally be broken.
However, the final clusters in a-]-k6f6t-xw ‘I did not open’ and a-n-d6n6g-ç ‘you
( ) did not hit’ cannot be broken possibly because the suffixes are
analyzed as -xu and -xi, respectively.
Medial clusters of three consonants are broken as C1C2GC3 when one of the
following disjunctive conditions is satisfied: (a) C1 is a homorganic nasal derived
from /r/, as in (26a), (b) C2 is an obstruent and C3 a sonorant, as in (26b), (c)
C1C2C3 is a sonorant-fricative-stop cluster, as in (26c), or (d) C2 and C3 are the
same as in (26d). (See §4.2.3 for the nasalization of /r/ in (26a), §4.4.3 and
§6.4.2 for metathesis to syllabify /r/ as a coda.) They are broken as C1GC2C3
when C1 is an obstruent and C2C3 is a fricative-stop or sonorant-obstruent
cluster, as in (26e). Otherwise, i.e. when none of the above conditions can be
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 27

achieved, they can be broken either way, (26f). However, I prefer the second
alternate (i.e. the one with a heavy penult) in all these cases.
(26)
a. y6-]gGd-o ‘Let them touch sth!’
b. y6-gfGr-o ‘Let them release sth!’
c. yG-t’6ösG-te ‘He is going to fry sth.’
yG-k’6msG-te ‘He is going to taste sth.’
d. y6-gdGd-o ‘Let them pierce!’
e. y6-kGft-o ‘Let them open sth!’
y6-k’Grs-o ‘Let them start sth!’
f. y6-ktGf-o / y6-kGtf-o ‘Let them hash sth!’
y6-zgGd-o / y6-zGgd-o ‘Let them remember!’
y-a-zmGr-o / y-a-zGmr-o ‘Let them sing!’
y6-k’rGm-o / y6-k’Grm-o ‘Let them insult!’
y6-k’öGr-o / y6-k’Gör-o ‘Let them bury, plant!’
y6-srGö-o / y6-sGrö-o ‘Let them spin!’
To sum up, there are three distinct sites of epenthesis. The first scans any two
distinct word-initial consonants, (27a). This scanning applies before the other
two. A cluster of three consonants C1C2C3 can be broken as C1C2GC3, C1GC2C3
or both depending on the nature of the consonants, as specified in (27b,c,d). (The
conditions in (27b) are disjunctive so satisfying only one of them suffice whereas
in (27c) the first condition must be satisfied and conjoined with one of the
remaining two conditions).6

6. However, a cluster of three consonants is not broken if the first member is a placeless nasal and
the following two members are assimilated consonants. In this case, the nasal consonant deletes by
nasalizing a preceding vowel, e.g. a-N-t-dan6g → ã-d-dan6g ‘I do not fight’ and a-N-t-k’an6m → ã-t’-
k’an6m ‘I do not insult.’ Similarly, when the reflexive t- is flanked between the second person t- and
a stem-initial stop or coronal (as in negative-2-reflexive-stem- ), e.g. a-t-t-dar6g-o [addar6go]
‘do not fight ( ) each other!’ a-t-t-k’ar6m-o [at’k’ar6mo / atk’ar6mo] ‘do not insult ( )
each other!’ and a-t-t-zam6d-o [adzam6do / atzam6do] ‘do not pull ( ) each other!’, one of the
prefixal t’s delete so no epenthetic vowel is inserted. On the other hand, when the stem-initial
consonant is nonstop or noncoronal (in which case t will not share a feature with C1), there is no
t-deletion and G is inserted after the geminate tt, e.g. a-t-t-mar-o [attGmaro] ‘do not go to school!’, a-t-
t-öar6t’-o [attGöar6t’o] ‘do not outwit ( ) each other!’, a-t-t-fat’6r-o [attGfat’6ro] ‘do not lie (
) to each other!’ and a-t-t-x6d6r-o [attGx6d6ro] ‘do not dress up ( )!’
28 SOUND MUTATIONS

(27) Epenthesis sites of Chaha

a. #C1___C2 (where C1 ≠ C2)
b. C1C2___C3 (where C1 = /r/, C2C3 is obstruent-sonorant cluster,
C1C2C3 is sonorant-fricative-stop cluster, or C2 = C3)
c. C1__C2C3 (where C1 is an obstruent and C2C3 is sonorant-
obstruent or fricative-stop cluster)
d. C1C2__C3 or C1__C2C3 (elsewhere)
If we replace C1 by V1, word-final clusters of two consonants fall under
(27b,c,d). In other words, the consonants of V1C2C3# (where # = word-final) are
separated if they are like the C2 and C3 of (27b). However, separation does not
require that C2 in V1C2C3# be an obstruent, i.e. at least in my speech, a final
sonorant cannot form a cluster with any consonant. The consonants of V1C2C3#
are not separated if they are like the C2 and C3 of (27c), i.e. sonorant-obstruent
or fricative-stop. Otherwise, i.e. where C2 and C3 of V1C2C3# are obstruents and
C2 is less or equally sonorous as C3, C2 and C3 can be broken optionally (similar
to (27d)).
When there is a cluster of more than three medial consonants, syllabification
starts from the first C1C2C3 and proceeds towards the right till every consonant
is syllabified as specified in (27). For example, the consonants in y6-ktf-n-xma
‘let him hash sth for you (pl.f)!’ are syllabified as follows. The first three
consonants (i.e. ktf) do not fall in any of the first three categories of (27) so
(27d) dictates that G should be inserted after k or t, as shown in (28a). Then, the
three consonants immediately following the G are tfn in the first column and fnx
in the second. In both cases, G is inserted after f as in (28b). The three consonants
immediately following the second G are nxm, which are syllabified as in (28c).
(28) /y6-ktf-n-xma/
a. y6kGtfnxma (by (27d)) or y6ktGfnxma (by (27d))
b. y6kGtfGnxma (by (27b)) y6ktGfGnxma (by (27c))
c. y6kGtfGnxGma (by (27b)) y6ktGfGnxGma (by (27b))
[y6kGtfGnxGma] [y6ktGfGnxGma]
However, a prefix of the type VC- tends to form a cluster with a stem-initial
consonant. Due to this, a-t- may cause separation of m from a following
obstruent, (29a), and a fricative from a following stop, (29b). Such a separation
contradicts (27c), which forms sonorant-obstruent and fricative-stop clusters.
(29) a. a-t-mxr-o → atGmxGro / atmGxro ‘Do not advise ( )!’
b. a-t-ft’r-o → atGft’Gro / atfGt’ro ‘Do not lie ( )!’
a-t-zgd-o → a-tzGgd-o ‘Do not remember ( )!’
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 29

The C1C2__C3 / C1__C2C3 alternation holds even when it incurs an additional

epenthetic vowel, e.g. y6-k’rGm-x6 / y6-k’GrmG-x6 ‘let him insult you ( )!’
but it cannot give rise to a …VCGCG… sequence, e.g. y-a-köGr-x6 (not *y-a-kGöGr-
x6) ‘let him respect you!’ Affixation does not alter a CiGCi syllabification. The
consonants preceding and following the [G] of CiGCi are syllabified like any other
consonant sequences.
While syllabification in general functions as we have just discussed, there
are some peculiarities that need to be mentioned. One of them is the interaction
between gemination and epenthesis. First of all, even though [G] is normally
inserted between two initial consonant clusters, it is also inserted before initial
geminates, e.g. Gyya ‘I.’ (See §4.9.3 for a discussion and exhaustive list of such
geminates.) The [G] is inserted also before a nongeminate N-, called the local-
movement prefix in Prunet and Petros (1996), e.g. Gn-dGöan6r ‘be deformed.’
Notice also that, according to the context in (27d), three medial sonorants can be
broken either way, e.g. /I-s6rö-n-o/ → [yGs6rGöno, yGs6röGno] ‘he spins them’.
However, this holds only when the three consonants are distinct. In other words,
if one of the clusters forms a derived surface geminate, e.g. /y-s6ör-n-o/ →
[yGs6öGnno] ‘he breaks them’, this will be the only acceptable form, cf.
*[yGs6örGno]. Besides, an underlying geminate or homorganic nasal-obstruent
cluster cannot be broken to form a surface geminate, thus /I-s6ör-nd6/ →
[yGs6örGnd6], not *[yGs6öGnnGd6]. The other point is that there are some [G]’s
whose presence is not needed for syllabic wellformedness, e.g. Gxa ‘water’ (
wGha). Similarly, in some contexts, two intervocalic consonants cannot form a
cluster unless they are adjacent in UR, e.g. /a-t-Uga/ → [atGga], not *[atga, adga],
‘do not stab!’ and /a-t-Ad6r/ → [atGd6r], not *[atd6r, add6r], ‘do not spend the
night!’ (See §1.3 on assimilation, §7.5.2 on U-deletion, and Petros 1993a on
A-deletion.) Based on these considerations we can analyze such [G]’s as
reminiscent of a deleted preceding glide. However, one problem remains since,
in other contexts, such as in the impersonal /g6f6r-U-öö-a-m/ → [g6fw6rpam]
‘one released to her detriment’, r and p form a cluster even though they are not
adjacent in UR. Thirdly, there are cases in which final CiCi is not broken by [G]
as in g6bb ‘calm’ which contrasts with the examples in (25c). (See Banksira
1999 for a discussion of such forms.) Besides, there are rare lexical exceptions
such as amGst ‘five’, wrongly predicted by (27b) to be syllabified as *amsGt, and
the cluster öny of G]k’yGöGny6 ‘brain’, predicted by (27d) to be syllabified as both
the correct G]k’yGöGny6 and incorrect *G]k’yGönGy6. Finally, no [G] is inserted
between a C and a glide docking on that C, e.g. y6-ft’I → y6-fc’, not *y6-fc’G ‘let
him grind’ and y6-t’6rk’U → y6-t’6]k’w, not *y6-t’6]k’wG ‘let him become deaf’,
which suggests that [G] is not an underlying segment.
30 SOUND MUTATIONS

1.5.4 Treatment of hiatus

The central vowels 6 and a fuse with a following vowel, (30), but 6 has an
impact only on a following close vowel. (See §9.4.4 and §9.5.5 for a proposal
that the suffix -i and -e below derive from /-rI/.)
(30) a. tGk6-u → tGko ‘It is a child’
f w6c6-i-m → f w6cem ‘One released it/him’
tGk6-o → tGko ‘Oh child!’
ag6d6-e-m → ag6dem ‘He tied me’
tGk6-6çta → tGk6çta ‘her child’
tGk6-aç → tGkaç ‘your ( ) child’
b. bora-u → borf ‘It is an ox’
yG-f6t-6ma-i → yGf6t6m7 ‘They () release it/him’
gweta-o → gweto ‘Oh God!’
yG-g6ö-6ma-e → yGg6ö6m7 ‘in order that they () enter’
naöa-6çta → naöaçta ‘her waist’
naöa-aç → naöaç ‘your ( ) waist’
The mid noncentral vowels e, o, 7 and f form hiatus with a following central
vowel, (31a), whereas they form diphthongs when followed by other vowels,
(31b). However, o becomes 6w before i, (31c). No other oi sequence is found to
verify whether this process is peculiar to the masculine plural suffix -o or not.
(31) a. gw6f6re-6ta → gw6f6re6ta ‘his Afro’
bwGtGto-ax6 → bwGtGtoax6 ‘your ( ) worn out cloth’
t’7-6na → t’76na ‘my sheep’
w6-t-k’f-6xno → w6t’k’f6xno ‘their () drinking coffee’
b. gw6f6re-u → gw6f6rey/wu ‘It is Afro’
bwGtGto-u → bwGtGtowu ‘It is worn out cloth’
y6-t’7-u → y6t’7y/wu ‘it is for a sheep’
yG-t’6öt’-e-e → yGt’6öt’eye ‘in order that he catch me’
yG-g6ö-o-e → yGg6öowe ‘in order that they () enter’
y6-t’7-e → y6t’7ye ‘towards the sheep’
yG-t-k’f-e → yGt’k’fwe ‘in order that he drinks coffee’
c. yG-t’6öt’-o-i → yGt’6öt’6wi ‘they () catch him’
The hiatus in (31a) should be analyzed as a sequence of two syllables since the
initial vowel of the suffix bears main stress, which falls on the penultimate
syllable (see §1.5).
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 31

The high vowels i and u become the respective glides y and w in a VC___V
context, (32a). On the other hand, they become the respective diphthongs Gy and
Gw in CC___V and #C___V contexts, (32b). However, note that iu can also be
realized as iyu and iwu. In addition, u-e is realized as uwe (not as Gwe) in y6-
c6k6r-xuw-e ‘because you ( ) cooked’.
(32) a. waöi-u → waöyu ‘He is generous’
sGöi-i → sGöyi ‘(you (sg.f)) break him/it’
y6-c6kw6r-i-e → y6-c6kw6rye ‘because one cooked it’
y6-c6kw6r-i-o → y6c6kw6ryo ‘those cooked’
abi-6ta → aby6ta ‘his Abi (way of addressing
elders)’
abi-aç → abyaç ‘your ( ) Abi’
b6-t’u-u → b6t’wu ‘it is with breast’
y-a-c6n6-xu-i → yac6n6xwi ‘the one you ( ) brought’
y-a-c6n6-xu-e → yac6n6xwe ‘because you ( ) brought’
b6-t’u-6ta → b6t’w6ta ‘on his breast’
b6-t’u-aç → b6t’waç ‘on your ( ) breast’
(swear-word)
b. y6-k’w6^c’-i-e → y6k’w6^c’Gye ‘because one despised him’
y6-c6k6r-xu-i → y6c6k6rxGwi ‘ t h e o n e y o u (       )
cooked’
t’u-6ta → t’Gw6ta ‘his breast’
t’u-aç → t’Gwaç ‘your ( ) breast’ (swear-
word)
In all cases, the post-consonant glides are more closed and audible than the
intervocalic glides.
In a sequence of three vowels a medial high vowel becomes a glide, (33a),
and a final high vowel inserts a glide before it, (33b). The oy in (33a) can also
become 6w, as in yGt’6öt’6wye. Three nonhigh vowels form a hiatus, (33c).
(33) a. yG-t’6öt’-o-i-e → yGt’6öt’oyye ‘in order that they () catch
him’
yG-f6t-6ma-i-e → yGf6t6maye ‘in order that they () release
him’
b. yG-f6t-6ma-e-u → yGf6t6m7wu ‘it is that they () release’
tG-k’aw-i-e-u → tGk’awyewu ‘it is that you ( ) discard it’
tG-d6rgy-i-e-u → tGd6rgyGyewu ‘it is that you ( ) churn it’
c. yG-f6ta-e-e → yGf6t7e ‘in order that he release me’
32 SOUND MUTATIONS

1.6 Stems

1.6.1 Basic verb stems and verb types

The basic verb stems are of two types: short or long template. Short template
stems, (34a), have three and long template stems, (34b), have four consonants.
(34) Imperative Imperfective Perfective
a. sGöGr tG-s6öGr s6p6r-x6-m ‘break sth’
sGx6r tG-s6xGr s6k6r-x6-m ‘get drunk’
b. s6mbGt tG-sr6p(G)t sGr6p6t-x6-m ‘sojourn’
In general, Transitive short template verbs have the C1C2C3 imperative stem,
where an epenthetic G is inserted between the consonants following the epenthesis
rules of §1.6. Only intransitive short template verbs have the Imperative stem
sGx6r ‘get drunk!’ (i.e. C1C26C3). The verbs bGx6r ‘lack!’, nGm6d ‘love!’ and st’6I
→ sGt’e ‘drink!’ are exceptions in having the sGx6r stem irrespective of being
transitive. The distinction of stem for transitive and intransitive verbs holds only
in the Imperative of short template verbs. Accordingly, the nine stems of (34)
can be generalized to the following seven stems.
(35) Imperative Imperfective Perfective
 = C1C2C3
a. Triradical -C16C2(G)C3 C16C2C26C3-
 = C1C26C3
b. Quadriradical C16C2C3GC4 -C1C26C3C3(G)C4 C1(G)C26C3C36C4-
I assume that these seven stems exhaust the basic verb stems, which include only
the root and vowels expressing aspect, which are intercalated between the
radicals. I will use these stems in accounting for the sound and pattern alterna-
tions to be discussed throughout this book. (See Chapters 8 and 9 for subject and
object affixes and their interaction.)
As we proceed, it will become evident that the surface realization of the
radicals /I, U, A/ and the geminated penult are the main factors of sound and
pattern alternations. For the moment, I will only mention some of the assump-
tions and descriptive generalizations concerning the stems given in (35). First of
all, C2C2 of the triradical and C3C3 of the quadriradical (i.e. the proposed
underlying geminated penults) surface as simple but in these contexts we obtain
the nasal [n] when the root is /r/, the stop [k] when the root is /x/, the voiceless
fricative [s] when the root is /z/ and the voiceless stops [p, t, k] when the root is
/ö, d, g/, respectively. (See Chapter 2 for restrictions on devoicing.) Plain and
ejective voiceless segments and the nasal /m/ are not altered in this position.
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 33

An anonymous reviewer questioned the correctness of the proposed

underlying geminates, suggesting that the sound alternations may be due to a
sound restriction on the penult. However, there is at least one argument showing
that strengthening and degemination are synchronic processes in Chaha. Consider
the examples in (36). We see from (36a) that the 1. subject suffix is -x and
from (36b) that the 2  object suffix is -x6. These two suffixes come
together in (36c), where we have strengthening and degemination (xx → k).
(36) a. s6p6r-x-n-o-m ‘I have broken them ()’
b. 6-s6öGr-x6 ‘I break you ( )’
c. s6p6r-x-x6-m → s6p6r-k6-m ‘I have broken you ( )’
Strengthening and degemination does not apply in all contexts. For instance, we
have nax-xG-n-a-m (not *naknam) ‘I sent her’. Yet, the fact that they apply in
(36c) show that they do apply in specified contexts.7
In order to understand how the root vocoids /I, U, A/ are realized phonetical-
ly consider the second person singular masculine conjugations in (37). In (37a–c)
the stems include only three consonants, which may lead one to believe that they
are triradicals similar to the Classical Arabic –ktb ‘write’. However, I will
analyze these verbs as quadriradicals, paralleling (37d). Similarly, irrespective of
the fact that the stems in (38a–c) include only two consonants I will analyze
them as triradicals, paralleling (38d). Some of the reasons for my analysis are
discussed immediately below. (See also Lowenstamm 1996b and Prunet and
Petros 1996 on this issue.)
(37) Imperative Imperfective Perfective
a. z6\gy tG-zr6ky zGr6ky6-x6-m ‘speak’
b. t’6]k’w tG-t’r6k’w t’Gr6k’w6-x6-m ‘be deaf’
c. k’6mba tG-k’r6pa k’Gr6pa-x6-m ‘hit, break at once’
d. s6mbGt tG-sr6p(G)t sGr6p6t-x6-m ‘sojourn’ = (34b)
(38) a. sGç tG-s6ç s6ky6-x6-m ‘flee’
b. nGk’w tG-r6k’w n6k’w6-x6-m ‘roar’
c. k’Göa tG-k’6öa k’6pa-x6-m ‘smear’
d. sGöGr tG-s6öGr s6p6r-x6-m ‘break sth’ = from
(34a)

7. I do not adopt the account suggested by the reviewer also because: (a) it cannot connect these
sound alternations with the gemination found in the geminating dialects such as Eža, (b) it cannot
establish a relationship between nasalization, strengthening and devoicing, (c) it cannot link these
processes with gemination and it cannot relate them to compensation (§2.2.7 and §6.3), and (d) these
processes apply even in affixes so we cannot link them with the penult of the stem.
34 SOUND MUTATIONS

In the Imperative, C1 of a quadriradical is followed by [6], (37d). The fact that

C1 in the Imperative of (37a–c) is also followed by [6] shows that these are
quadriradicals. Conversely, C1 of a triradical is followed by [G], (38d), whereas
C1 in the Imperative of (37a–c) is not, showing that the latter are not triradicals.
In addition, the second radical /r/ of a quadriradical becomes nasal in the Impera-
tive, (37d). The fact that the second radical /r/ of (37a–c) is a nasal in the Imper-
ative also shows that these forms are quadriradicals. Note that the second radical
/r/ of a triradical does not nasalize in the Imperative, e.g. dGrg (not *dG]g) ‘hit!’
In the Imperfective, [6] of a quadriradical is preceded by two root conso-
nants, (37d). The fact that [6] in the Imperfective of (37a–c) is also preceded by
two root consonants shows that the forms in (37a–c) are also quadriradicals.
Conversely, [6] of a triradical is preceded by a single root consonant, (38d),
whereas [6] in the Imperfective of (37a–c) is not, showing that these are not
triradicals. In addition, the penult is fortitioned in the Imperfective of quadri-
radicals, e.g. b devoices in (37d), while it is not in the triradicals, cf. (38d). The
fact that ky in (37a) and p in (37c) are devoiced shows that these forms are
quadriradicals. Similarly, that we have the respective consonants ç and ö, and not
ky and p, in the Imperfective of (38a, c) demonstrates the absence of fortition in
this class, again showing that these forms pattern with triradicals.
In the Perfective, the subject suffix -x6 is immediately preceded by the final
radical, as in (37d) and (38d). However, such a radical is lacking in (37a–c) and
(38a–c) since the suffix is immediately preceded by a vowel. In other words, the
phonetic stem-final vowels are not final in . Notice that only the penultimate
consonant is flanked by the Perfective vowels 6-6, again showing that the surface
last consonant of these stems is in fact the penult in . Moreover, no [G] follows
C1 of a triradical Perfective verb whereas C1 in (37a–c) is followed by [G] indicat-
ing that these apparent triradicals are in fact quadriradicals. Based on these
arguments and others to be discussed throughout this book, I claim that the final
radical of (37a, 38a) is /I/, that of (37b, 38b) is /U/, and that of (37c, 38c) is /A/.
In these examples, /I/ and /U/ surface on the preceding consonant as palatal-
ization and labialization respectively whereas /A/ surfaces as an independent [a].
In the same manner, I analyze the surface triradicals of (39a–c) as vocoid-
second quadriradicals and the surface biradicals of (40a–c) as vocoid-second
triradicals, i.e. C2 is /I/ in (39a, 40a), /U/ in (39b, 40b) and /A/ in (39c, 40c),
where the vocoids are realized as discussed in the previous paragraph. (The a
raise to 6 in the Imperfective of (40c) but raising does not apply when the
surface final radical is biphonemic, e.g. tG-mac ‘you get mad’ from –mAtI. See
Petros 1993a on this issue.)
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 35

(39) Imperative Imperfective Perfective

a. g6p(G)t tG-gy6p(G)t gy6p6t-x6-m ‘gallop’
b. bw6rs tG-w6ns bw6n6s-x6-m ‘feel lonely’
c. marx tG-manx man6x-x6-m ‘capture’
d. s6mbGt tG-sr6p(G)t sGr6p6t-x6-m ‘sojourn’
(40) a. k’yGm tG-k’y6m k’y6m-x6-m ‘win’
b. k’wGm tG-k’w6m k’w6m-x6-m ‘stand still’
c. dak’ tG-d6k’ dak’-x6-m ‘laugh’
d. sGöGr tG-s6öGr s6p6r-x6-m ‘break’
The I-second quadriradical of (39a) represents the verb class known as type B,
(39b) represents type D, and (39c) represents type C. The claim that these forms has
a second radical vocoid which fuses with a preceding segment explains why surface
biradicals conjugate like triradicals (i.e. they utilize the stems of (35a)) and surface
triradicals conjugate like quadriradicals (i.e. they utilize the stems of (35b)).8
In some contexts, the radical /I/ surfaces as a front vowel ([i], [e] or [7])
and /U/ surfaces as a back round vowel ([u], [o] or [f]). This happens mostly
when the vocoids cannot find a legitimate consonant to dock onto. A radical /I/
docks on: (a) an immediately preceding lingual consonant (i.e. coronal or dorsal),
as in the examples (37a), (38a), (39a), (40a, b) any preceding dorsal consonant
given that no lingual consonant intervenes, e.g. a-ç6p-x6-m ‘you ( ) have
crouched’ from –xöI, and (c) an immediately following dorsal consonant if (a)
and (b) cannot apply, e.g. m6ky6r-x6-m ‘you ( ) have burnt sth’ from
–mIgr. In the absence of these three contexts, /I/ surfaces as a vowel, e.g. nG-sif
‘let me sew’ and sef6-xwG-m ‘I have sewn’ from –sfI. See §7.5 and §7.6 on the
realization of a radical /U/.

1.6.2 Stems expanded by affixation

Nonreduplicated triradicals can maximally have seven different conjugation

Forms (comparable to the seven Benyan of Tiberian Hebrew), as shown below
by –rxö ‘find’. (F2 is parenthesized below to indicate that the given Form is
hypothetical as –rxö does not conjugate for F2 but there are roots such as –sxr
‘get drunk’ with F2 conjugation, e.g. y-a-sxGr / y-a-s6xGr / a-s6k6r-. I analyze at-
as a single causative prefix and not as the transitive prefix a- followed by the
reflexive t-, see below for arguments.)

8. For analyzing the traditional type B and type C verbs as quadriradicals, see e.g. Rose (1992),
Petros (1993a, b), Prunet and Petros (1996), Prunet (1996a) and Chamora (1997).
36 SOUND MUTATIONS

(41) Imperative Imperfective Perfective

Basic stem F1 nGx6ö tG-r6xGö n6k6ö- ‘find’
a-stems F2 (a-]xGö t-a-r6xGö a-r6k6ö-) (hypothetical)
F3 a-raxGö t-a-rakGö a-rak6ö- ‘announce search’
t66-stems F4 t6-r6x6ö tG-t-r6k6ö t6-r6k6ö- ‘be found’
F5 t6-rax6ö tG-t-rak6ö t6-rak6ö- ‘meet’
at-stems F6 at-r6xGö t-at-r6kGö at-r6k6ö- ‘show’
F7 at-raxGö t-at-rakGö at-rak6ö- ‘introduce’
The initial prefix of the second person Imperfective is t- but an epenthetic G is
inserted after t in the Basic and t6-stems to separate it from the following consonant.
The penult is invariably [x] (the underlying form) in the Imperative and [k] (the
fortitioned form) in the Perfective. The Imperfective has mixed forms, [x] only
in F1 and F2 and [k] in the remaining paradigms. The vocalism of the expanded
stems is as follows. The two final radicals are separated by 6 in all Forms in the
Perfective and in all aspects in the t6-stems. Otherwise, the two final radicals are
not separated by an underlying vowel. The two initial radicals are adjacent in the
Imperative of F1 and F2 (the forms without fortition in the Imperfective), they are
separated by an infix -6- in F4 and F6, and by an infix -a- in F3, F5 and F7.
When attached to a free stem, the prefixes a-, t6- and at- alter the argument
structure of the verb. (See Petros 1994 on their role in prefix necessitating
stems). The prefix a- transitivizes an intransitive verb, e.g. w6t’a ‘go out’ vs.
a-w6t’a ‘take out’. It slightly modifies the meaning of some transitive verbs, e.g.
b6na ‘eat’ vs. a-ö6na ‘feed’, z6g6d ‘remember’ vs. a-z6g6d ‘remind’ and t’6ö6t’
‘hold’ vs. a-t’6ö6t’ ‘give to someone to hold, bet’ and t6k6s ‘burn’ vs. a-t6k6s
‘light’. The prefix t6- (only initially, otherwise it is t-) makes the verb reflexive,
e.g. 6gr-6ta t6-s6p6r- ‘he broke his leg’, or ergative, e.g. injapa t6-s6p6r- ‘the
bowl broke’. While we have the interpretations in (42a–c), the prefix at- does not
convey the meaning in (42d), suggesting that at- is not decomposable.
(42) Internal structure
a. kft = Open () ‘X opens the door’
b. t-kft = Open () ‘The door opens’
c. at-kft = Cause to open () ‘Y causes X to open the door’
d. a-t-kft = Cause to open () *‘Y causes the door to open’
This predicts that ergative verbs may not take a-, which is confirmed by the
impossibility of having *a-w6t’6k’ ‘X cause Y to fall’ from *w6t’6k’ ‘Y fall’.
Combined with the prefixes t6- the infix -a- expresses reciprocity so it
requires that the subject be plural as in y6-t-rax6ö-o ‘let them meet’ (= find each
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 37

other). When the subject is not in the plural it expresses a habitual or repeated
action as in zGx wGr yG-t-waka ‘this bull fights’ (= has the habit of fighting).
Combined with at- the -a- expresses causation of reciprocity so it requires that
the object be plural as in y-at-raxGö-n-o ‘let he introduce them’ (= cause them to
find each other).
Nouns and adjectives can be expanded by prefixing a-, t6- or at- as shown
in a-t’Grk’w-Gy6 ‘dried (kind of bread)’ (from –t’rk’), t6-m6ňň-at ‘hope’ (from
–mIrI), at-wac’-at ‘contribution’ (from –wt’A). However, nouns and adjectives
with similar prefixes are very rare and their stems do not have a fixed pattern.

1.6.3 Stems expanded by reduplication

Chaha displays three types of reduplication. These are medial CCiVCiC (also
known as frequentative), final (C)CCiVCi and total CiVCjCiVCj reduplication.
The reduplicated forms can also be expanded by affixing a-, t6- or at-.
Transitive triradicals and vocoid-second quadriradicals reduplicate their
penultimate radical to form what is known as the frequentative, as shown below.
Consonants with labialization or palatalization are manipulated as a single unit in
reduplication, e.g. m6w6- ‘became night’ vs. a-mwaw6 ‘stayed till night’. Vowels of
the unreduplicated base, e.g. a of c’aöGr are not retained when reduplicated, e.g.
c’GöaöGr, (43d). As exemplified in (43f), some forms need a prefix to be
reduplicated. Triradicals with a penultimate /A/ can reduplicate their C1 if C1 is
preceded by a prefix, e.g. from t6-wad ‘share’ we obtain t6-w6w6d ‘share among
many people’, from a-dak’ ‘make laugh’ we get a-d6d6k’ ‘make laugh repeated-
ly’, and from t6-ç6r ‘be known’ we derive the reflexive frequentative t6-ç6ç6r
‘introduce each other’.9
(43) Verbs with a reduplicated penult (= Frequentative)
Root Imperative Imperfective Perfective
a. sör sGö6öGr tG-sö6pGr sGö6p6r-x6-m ‘smash’
b. rgd nGgag(G)d tG-rgag(G)d nGgag6d-x6-m ‘stir’
c. rxö t6-rx6x6ö tG-tG-rk6k6ö t6-rk6k6ö-x6-m ‘be visible’
d. t’IAör c’GöaöGr tG-c’öapGr c’Göap6r-x6-m ‘pare’
e. mIt’r mGt’6t’Gr tG-mt’6t’Gr mGt’6t’6r-x6-m ‘sort out’
f. k’Umr t6-k’wmam6r tG-t-k’wmam6r t6-k’wmam6r-x6-m ‘encouraged’

9. The x is palatalized in all prefixed stems of xar, e.g. t6-ç6r ‘be known’, a-ç6r ‘become clear’ and
at-ç6r ‘inform’.
38 SOUND MUTATIONS

An underlying vowel 6 or a always separates the first two consonants from the
last two. The choice among 6 and a in this position seems arbitrary, cf. (43a) and
(43b). There are some verbs in which the two vowels are in free variation, e.g.
mGt’6t’6s/mGt’at’6s ‘has broken a cord in many pieces’ from –mIt’s. The syllable
with this vowel (underlined in sGö6öGr and nGgag(G)d) is considered as the redupli-
cant, infixed before the penultimate radical. However, so far, no solid arguments
have been found in support of this view (the only argument mentioned so far is
the fixed vowel of the syllable). It is possible, for example, to see sGö6öGr as
totally reduplicated –sör linked to a CC6CC frequentative template by edge-in
association with the unassociated consonants being truncated, as shown in (44).
See Yip (1988) for edge-in association and Inkelas and Zoll (1999) for a claim
that all types of reduplication are better analyzed as double stem selection.
(44) s ö r → Ø
| |
C C 6 C C
| |
Ø ← s ö r
This analysis can solve the problem of infixation (or circumfixing part of the
root constituent as a base of reduplication) since no reduplicative infix is
involved. It can also solve the problem of copying directionality in that, now,
copying proceeds in an edge-in fashion whereas in an analysis where ö alone is
copied, copying does not proceed from an edge. However, this book will not
develop the issue any further.
Some roots reduplicate their final radical. With final reduplication, biradicals
function like triradicals and triradicals function like quadriradicals.
(45) Verbs with final reduplication
Root Imperative Imperfective Perfective
a. k’ö k’GöGö tG-k’6öGö k’6p6ö-x6-m ‘shave’
ör bGr6r tG-ö6rGr b6n6r-x6-m ‘fly’
b. brg b6rgGg tG-ör6gGg bGr6g6g-x6-m ‘be startled,
bolt’
The two copies are always separated by either epenthetic or underlying vowel but
exceptionally no such vowel is found in tG-f6zz ‘you get better’.
Bound stems with one or two surface consonant may undergo total redupli-
cation, as shown in (46).
 PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS 39

(46) Verbs with total reduplication

Root Imperative Imperfective Perfective
a. sA sasa tG-sasa sasa-x6-m ‘become thin’
b. t’m t’6t’Gm tG-t’m6t’Gm t’Gm6t’6m-x6-m ‘roll’
c. gUz gw6zgwGz tG-gwz6gwGz gwGz6gw6z-x6-m ‘spread’
The patterning of –gUz with this class indicates that gw here functions as a single
consonant. While five totally-reduplicated verbs with a rounded velar are found
(out of total 54) only kyGf6ky6f ‘has drizzled’ has a palatalized velar and no verb
of this class contains a rounded labial. The complex consonant is always the first
member. (See §6.3 for the deletion of the penult in the Imperative of (46b).)
The three types of reduplication are seen also in nouns and adjectives, e.g.
nGk’6k’6mwac6 ‘collected, tiny’ (from –rk’m), m6rd6d ‘sickle’ (from –mrd), fGrfGr
‘worm’ (from –fr) and can be analyzed in a similar fashion.

1.7 Conclusion

In this chapter I briefly discussed the phonemes, syllables and stems of Chaha.
I have concluded that: (a) sonorants and /t/ lack laryngeal specification whereas
ejectives are [constricted glottis], voiceless fricatives are [spread glottis] and
voiced obstruents are [voice], (b) /ö/ is an approximant while its allophones [b, p]
are obstruents, (c) the spirant /x/ differs form both fricatives and approximants,
(d) plain voiceless stops [p, k] are not underlying phonemes, (e) phonemes with
laryngeal specification (obstruents other than t) are not licensed in prefixes, and
(f) the contrast between the liquid /r/ and the placeless nasal /N/ is neutralized in
verb stems. But there are instances of nonalternating /N/’s in a handful nominal
stems and affixes which require postulating an /N/.
Based on the discussions in this chapter the phonetic inventory of Chaha
consonants given in (1) can be reduced to the following phonemic inventory.
40 SOUND MUTATIONS

Table 1.4. Phonemic inventory of Chaha consonants

(47) bilabial Labio- alveolar palatal velar labio- guttural
dental dorsal
Stops
Voiceless ejective t’ k’
Voiceless t
Voiced d g
Fricatives
Voiceless f s A
Voiced z
Spirants x
Sonorants
Nasal m N
Approximant öœ r I U

Given that /I, U/ are not the only sources of peripheral vowels we will accept the
phonetic vowel inventory of Chaha to be also the phonemic inventory. (But see
Beyene (1973: 217) for a different generalization about Amharic vowel pho-
nemes.) It is shown that some [a] derive from a radical /A/ but it has not been
proven whether all [a]’s do. Despite the presence of [a]’s which function
differently no contrast between an [a] coming from /A/ and /a/ has been
identified. We will see now that geminate devoicing and degemination support
the proposals of this chapter.
 C 2

Geminate Devoicing and Degemination

2.1 Introduction

The penultimate obstruent radical of some Perfective verbs (which I call the
m6k6r type) devoices in Chaha, cf. the contrast between Jussive and Perfective
in (1a). On the other hand, other Perfective verbs (which I call the n6g6d type)
do not devoice their penult, (1b). This chapter will attempt to account for the
voicing difference in the penult of the m6k6r- and n6g6d-type verbs and will
discuss its implications for theories of underspecification as well as the role of
tier conflation on devoicing and degemination.
(1) Perfective penult devoicing vs. its absence
a. m6k6r-type verbs
Jussive Perfective
y6-mg6r m6k6r ‘suppurate’
y6-sdGö s6t6ö ‘curse’
y6-z6sGm zGm6s6m ‘be wet’
y6-zaöt zap6t ‘lose one’s way’
y6-k’öGö k’6p6ö ‘shave’
b. n6g6d-type verbs
Jussive Perfective
y6-]gGd n6g6d ‘touch’
y6-ndGf n6d6f ‘sting’
y6-z6z(G)f zGf6z6f ‘soak’
y6-zGök’ z6b6k’ ‘daub’
y6-fz6z f6z6z ‘be better’
Devoicing occurs also in the Imperfective if: (a) the verb has the reflexive prefix
t(6)-, e.g. yG-t-g6t6r ‘he goes to sleep’, from –gdr, or (b) the verb has the recipro-
cal infix -a-, e.g. y-a-dapGr ‘he associates with others’ from –dör (-a- is always
infixed before the penultimate radical), or (c) the verb is a quadriradical, e.g.
42 SOUND MUTATIONS

yG-fr6kGr ‘he extirpates ’, from –frgr (cf. y6-f6]gGr ‘let him extirpate !’), yG-
j6pGr ‘he finishes ’ from –dIör (cf. y6-d6öGr ‘let him finish !’), and yG-zapGt
‘he loses his way’ from –zAöt (cf. y6-zaöt ‘let him lose his way!’). The prefix a-
differs from the infix -a- and the prefix t(6)- in not triggering penult devoicing
in the Imperfective, e.g. y-a-k’6öGr ‘he reduces ’ from –k’ör. Devoicing in the
Imperfective behaves as in the Perfective and will not be discussed in this book.
Devoicing may occur in the Jussive but only if there is a deleted radical to
compensate for (see §2.2.7 and §2.3).
According to Leslau (1976: 138), devoicing gives rise to a third type of
Perfective pattern in the triradicals of Ethiopian Semitic languages. The three
patterns are: the Geäez pattern (with a simple penult, e.g. s6b6r), the Amharic
Pattern (with a geminate penult, e.g. s6bb6r), and the Chaha pattern (with a
simple but devoiced penult, e.g. s6p6r). (Endegeň verbs have either a geminate,
which is necessarily devoiced, or a simple penult.) In my view, devoicing is
equivalent to gemination, i.e. m6k6r is an underlying /m6gg6r/ with a CVCiCiVC
template. Thus, Amharic and Chaha have the same underlying pattern but
degemination applies only in Chaha. Nonetheless, despite the fact that a geminate
penult is common to all Perfective verbs in Amharic (and a few other languages:
they are, according to Leslau 1976: 138, Argobba, Gafat, Eža, Muher, Masqan,
Gogot and Soddo), the n6g6d-type Perfective verbs of Chaha do not devoice their
penult. There are two ways of explaining this difference.
The first is to divide verbs in two classes: (a) those which have underlying
gemination, i.e. the m6k6r type, and (b) those which do not have such gemination,
i.e. the n6g6d type. Such a division is made in McCarthy (1986a: 224, note 7),
where it is claimed that zGm6s6m ‘be wet’ (from (1a)) has devoicing because it
is reconstructed with a medial geminate while gGz6g6z ‘be cold’, (parallel to
zGf6z6f of (1b)) has no devoicing because it is not reconstructed with a medial
geminate. Nevertheless, note that all Perfective verbs have a geminate penult in
languages that have the Amharic pattern and that this hypothesis will force us to
lose this important generalization. It is possible to surmount this problem by
assuming that Chaha combines the Amharic pattern (i.e. m6k6r type) and the
Geäez pattern (i.e. n6g6d type). However, geminate strengthening (affecting x,
e.g. y6-sx6r/s6k6r ‘get drunk’, discussed in Chapter 3) occurs in all Perfective
verbs, showing that all of them have the underlyingly geminate penult of the
Amharic pattern. Furthermore, geminate nasalization (affecting r, e.g. y6-
srGö/s6n6ö ‘spin’ and y6-dGrg/d6n6g ‘hit’, discussed in Chapter 4) occurs in all
Perfective verbs, also showing that all of them have a geminate penult. It is
therefore not plausible to create two classes of verbs which operate only in
Chaha verbs with penultimate voicing alternation. Classifying verbs into the
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 43

geminating type of m6k6r and the nongeminating type of n6g6d fails to capture
the important generalization that, in every Ethio-Semitic language, verbs with an
equal number of radicals employ a unique pattern for a given verbal aspect. It is
not a plausible analysis also from a typological perspective as it adds a third
language type in Ethiopic where only two (North and South) would be enough.
Finally, I will show in this chapter that the voicing difference in the penult of
the m6k6r- and n6g6d-type verbs is determined by the nature of the last radical,
showing that classifying the two types on the basis of their pattern is unfounded.
The second possibility, which I will argue for, consists in assuming that all
Perfective verbs have an underlying geminate penult and explaining why such a
penult in n6g6d-type verbs degeminates without being devoiced. Leslau (1979: lxxiv,
vol III) takes a similar option but from a diachronic point of view. He states:
“Harari and East Gurage have a non-geminated 2nd radical. As for West Gurage
except Eža … the 2nd radical is likewise simple, but there are indications from
diachronic point of view that the 2nd radical was geminated. Indeed, whenever
the original 2nd radical is a geminated voiced … it appears as voiceless non-
geminated … ” Various reasons as to why the original geminate penult in
n6g6d-type verbs has not been devoiced are given in Leslau (1979: lxvii-lxxi, vol
III). But his reasonings do not offer a unified explanation and fail to explain
some exceptions to geminate devoicing. For example, the absence of devoicing
in t6-c’ab6k’ ‘has been squeezed’ is attributed to “the tendency of avoiding a
succession of three voiceless sounds *c’pk’” (p. lxviii) whereas such successions
of sounds are found at the surface level, e.g. w6p6t ‘has chosen’. (Note, however,
that according to my analysis, these forms are quadriradicals with the second
radical being /I/, i.e. –t’Iök’ and –sIöt, respectively). Similarly, he attributes the
absence of devoicing in n6g6d to “the presence of another voiced in the root” (p.
lxix). But the presence of another voiced radical in the root does not necessarily
block geminate devoicing, as in g6t6r ‘has put to sleep’ (from –gdr). Besides,
there are words like n6z6k’ ‘has been fortunate’ which cannot be explained in
either of these analyses.
On the other hand, McCarthy (1986a: 210) claims that “devoicing of
historical geminates was blocked just in case the voiced geminate appeared in a
configuration […VC i C i VC i …] (as in add6d6) or […C i VC i C i V…] (as in
a-rgagg6t’6).” This explanation may account for the blocking of geminate
devoicing in verbs such as f6z6z ‘has been better’, from (1b). However, the
devoicing of /gg/ in a verb such as wGgak6r ‘has changed repeatedly’ (from
/wGgagg6r/), shows that these configurations do not necessarily block geminate
devoicing. In addition, his explanation does not account for the absence of
geminate devoicing in n6g6d since g here is not in such a configuration.
44 SOUND MUTATIONS

Hetzron (1977: 51–52), Leslau (1979: lxx, vol. III) and McCarthy (1986a: 219)
invoke borrowing as the other factor to block devoicing. But this explanation
cannot account for n6g6d, which is a native verb. Goldenberg (1994: 55) lists
some native verbs without devoicing (i.e. n6g6d type) but does not give an
explanation for the absence of devoicing in them. I will attempt to give a unified
account for the absence of penult devoicing in n6g6d-type verbs. In particular, I
will argue that both m6k6r-type and n6g6d-type verbs have an underlying
geminate penult in the Perfective and that the voicing difference between them
follows from the following two hypotheses:1
(2) Hypotheses about geminate devoicing and degemination in Chaha:
(first version)
a. Geminates devoice and degeminate if they are the rightmost
obstruent of a morpheme.
b. Otherwise, they degeminate (without being devoiced).
What (2a) states is that geminate penultimate obstruents devoice and degeminate
when the final radical is a sonorant whereas (2b) states that they degeminate
without being devoiced when the final radical is an obstruent. In my view, the
underlying representations of m6k6r and n6g6d are as follows:
(3) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. C 6 C C 6 C

m g r r g d
m6k6r ‘has suppurated’ n6g6d ‘has touched’
In both (3a) and (3b), /gg/ is the penultimate radical and it is a geminate. It is
also the rightmost obstruent in m6k6r since /r/ is not an obstruent. Because /gg/
in m6k6r is a geminate and the rightmost obstruent at the same time it devoices
and degeminates, following hypothesis (2a). The /gg/ in n6g6d is also a geminate
but the rightmost obstruent of the morpheme (i.e. the root) is d, not g. In
addition, the rightmost obstruent d is not a geminate. So, neither g nor d satisfies
the structural description of devoicing, (2a). Accordingly, /gg/ degeminates
without being devoiced, following hypothesis (2b). In my account, what triggers
devoicing in (3a) is not the presence of the final sonorant r but rather the
absence of a final obstruent. The fact that g is the rightmost obstruent in (3a),

1. In the closest (to Chaha) dialect Eža, where there is neither devoicing nor degemination, the
penult is a geminate in the Perfective of all verbs. This shows that the last radical does not play a
role in determining whether the penult should geminate or not. It also strengthens my claim that all
Chaha Perfective verbs have an underlying geminate penult.
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 45

but not in (3b), is what causes the voicing difference between the two. Adding
a suffix with an obstruent such as -xu ‘2 ’ to (3a) does not block
devoicing of /gg/, showing that a suffix does not change the rightmost-obstruent
status of /g/.
I argued in Chapter 1 that the underlying obstruents of Chaha are ejectives,
fricatives and voiced stops and that the plain voiceless stops are not underlying
phonemes, i.e. [p] is a devoiced and degeminated /öö/, [k] is a strengthened /x/
or a devoiced and degeminated /g/, and some [t]’s are a devoiced and degeminat-
ed /dd/. In addition, because [t] is the default consonant it does not behave like
underlying obstruents. Due to this, /öö/ in zap6t ‘has lost the way’, from (1), is
considered the rightmost obstruent, which devoices and degeminates following
(2a). Furthermore, given the proposal that Chaha /ö/ is a sonorant (see §1.3.1),
/dd/ in s6t6ö ‘has cursed’, from (1), is the rightmost obstruent, which devoices
and degeminates, as predicted by (2a).
Degemination (with or without devoicing) applies only to true geminates, in
which a single phoneme is linked to two adjacent syllables. One type of true
geminate is the stem-internal geminate shown in (3). The other type is a
morpheme-internal geminate, e.g. yG-k6ft-o-öö-a → yGk6ftopa ‘they open  to
her detriment’, where /öö/ surfaces as [p] (see §9.4). Because /öö/ here is the
rightmost obstruent of the suffix it devoices and degeminates, following (2a).
(Even though /öö/ is not a radical no obstruent follows the /öö/ in the suffix.)
Fake geminates, which arise at a word boundary (e.g. gwad d6k [gwadd6k] ‘white
calf’) or morpheme boundary due to assimilation (e.g. yG-t-d6m6d → yGdd6m6d ‘it
combines’) neither devoice nor degeminate. So, it should be noted that our
discussion in this chapter refers to true geminates.
The nature of radicals preceding the penult plays no role in geminate
devoicing. For instance, devoicing occurs in verbs such as zap6t ‘has lost one’s
way’ and s6t6ö ‘has cursed’ (both from (1a)) regardless of the initial obstruents.
Since the respective initial obstruents z and s do not block geminate devoicing,
there is no reason why the initial obstruents z, f and g would block it in words
such as z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’, f6z6z ‘has been better’ (both from (1b)) and g6d6f
‘has broken the lent’. The penult devoicing in zap6t, s6t6ö and m6k6r and its
absence in z6b6k’, f6z6z and g6d6f must be attributed to their final radical. In the
first three verbs, the final radical is a sonorant or t and the geminate penult is the
rightmost obstruent in each root. Hence, devoicing and degemination apply
according to hypothesis (2a). But the final radical in the last three verbs is an
obstruent other than t and the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent in
each root. Accordingly, degemination alone applies, which is in accordance with
hypothesis (2b).
46 SOUND MUTATIONS

Even though my analysis accounts for the vast majority of Chaha verbs
there are a handful of sonorant-final verbs in which geminate devoicing does not
apply, e.g. mez6r ‘has counted’ or is optional, e.g. as6r/az6r ‘has carried on one’s
back’. The hypothesis in (2a) predicts devoicing and degemination in such verbs
because the geminate is the rightmost obstruent. Yet, degemination applies
without devoicing. So these verbs are problematic to my analysis. We will notice
as we proceed that the proportion of exceptions is higher in the coronal series,
the only place where voiced and plain voiceless consonants contrast. It maybe
that Chaha tends to retain this contrast forcing some geminate coronal penults to
degeminate without being devoiced. In any case, all verbs with an underlying
voiced penultimate radical will be discussed in this chapter, which is organized
as follows. Verbs without a doubled radical are discussed in §2.2 and those with
a doubled radical are discussed in §2.3. Devoicing and degemination in nouns
and adjectives is discussed in §2.4, devoicing and degemination in affixes in
§2.5, and absence of devoicing and degemination in §2.6. In §2.7, it is claimed
that geminate devoicing and its absence (the hypothesis in (2)) follow from the
assumption that sonorants and t are unspecified for laryngeal features and a claim
that Chaha has a constraint which forbids a final doubly linked [voice]. As a
summary, the percentage of verbs that supports or goes against the hypotheses is
quantified in §2.8. The chapter also includes two appendices showing that the
analysis proposed for Chaha extends to explain the Amharic type B verbs and
apparent violations of the Obligatory Contour Principle (), which prohibits
identical adjacent autosegments, in Amharic.

2.2 Devoicing and degemination in verbs without a doubled radical

Verbs involving a penultimate voiced geminate but without doubling of a radical

are discussed in this section. Type B verbs (analyzed as I-second quadriradicals
in §1.6.1) are not introduced until §2.2.6 and §2.2.7.

2.2.1 When the final radical is /r/

The penultimate radicals of the verbs in (4) alternate between voiced and
voiceless. The voiced allophone is used in the Jussive while the voiceless
allophone is used in the Perfective. A variety of radicals (ejectives, fricatives,
voiced stops and sonorants) are found preceding the penult. This shows that
radicals preceding the penult play no role in determining whether it should
devoice or not. Moreover, in the exceptions (listed at the end of (4)), the radicals
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 47

preceding the penult are not homogeneous and whether the penultimate radical
is ö, d or g makes no difference concerning its devoicing.
(4) Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is /r/2
Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /ö/: y-at-s6öGr at-w6p6r ‘miscarry’
y-a-x6mbGr a-xr6p6r ‘take out from a cooking pot’
y6-c’aöGr c’ap6r ‘pare the root of 6s6t-plant’
y6-döGr d6p6r ‘add’
y6-k’öGr k’6p6r ‘plant, bury’
y6-k’ö6r k’6p6r ‘decrease, be incomplete’
y6-mb6r n6p6r ‘live’
y6-söGr s6p6r ‘break’
Penultimate /g/: y-f6]gGr fGr6k6r ‘extirpate’
y-a-sragGr a-srak6r ‘cause to be ill-mannered’
y-6gGr ak6r ‘raise cattle’
y6-d6ngGr dGr6k6r ‘throw away’
y6-mg6r m6k6r ‘suppurate’
y6-zg6r z6k6r ‘jump’
Penultimate /d/: y-a-fdGr a-f6t6r ‘ascribe one’s error to someone’
y-a-]-gwadGr a-]-gwat6r ‘feel sleepy, drowsy’
y-a-xdGr a-x6t6r ‘dress , buy cloth for someone’
y-6d6r at6r ‘spend the night’
y6-öd6r b6t6r ‘become first, advance’
y6-gdGr g6t6r ‘put to sleep’
y6-ndGr n6t6r/n6d6r ‘pierce’
y6-xdGr x6t6r ‘thatch’
Penultimate /z/: y-6z6r as6r/az6r ‘carry on one’s back, mount’
Exceptions: y6-d-dGraö6r t6-drab6r ‘bolt, grope’
y6-kö6r k6b6r ‘be respectable’ (< )
y6-sg6r s6g6r ‘amble’
The final radical of all these verbs is /r/. Therefore, the Perfective geminate
penult is the rightmost obstruent. Hence, it devoices and degeminates as predict-
ed by hypothesis (2a). However, the last three verbs are exceptions because they
have not devoiced their penult in the Perfective. Note that the degeminated /öö/

2. In the Jussive, ö is a stop only when it is postnasal (y-a-x6mbGr and y6-mb6r), where its place
specification is doubly linked. See Petros (1996b) and Chapter 4 on r vs. nasal alternation. The
epenthetic G in the Jussive shows that r may not be the second member of a final cluster.
48 SOUND MUTATIONS

of the exceptions is a stop b even though it is intervocalic. Absence of devoicing

in such verbs is often attributed to an assumption that they are loans. However,
in my view, these verbs are native. In fact, there is no difference between the
Amharic/Chaha cognates n6bb6r/n6p6r ‘has lived’ and t6-d6nab6r/t6-drab6r ‘has
groped’. So if we analyze n6p6r as a native verb (on the basis of its devoicing)
we cannot analyze t6-drab6r as a loan verb (just because we want to attribute the
absence of devoicing to that). Notice also that geminate devoicing is optional in
two verbs with a coronal penult (underlined in (4)), for which there is absolutely
no reason to assume that they are loans.

2.2.2 When the final radical is /A/

At first glance, devoicing in the vowel-final verbs below seems to suggest that
it is not limited to the penultimate radical. However, in my analysis, a verb such
as g6pa ‘has entered’ is a triradical with a final /A/ (an original guttural). In
other words, g6pa is an underlying /g6öö6A/. I also assume that /A/ is a sonorant.
Therefore, the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent in each word and
hypothesis (2a) predicts that it should devoice and degeminate. As shown by the
following list, the prediction holds for most verbs.
(5) Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is /A/
Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /ö/: y6-göa g6pa ‘enter’
y6-k’öa k’6pa ‘smear’
y6-köa k6pa ‘bend’
y6-mba n6pa ‘split’
y6-söa s6pa ‘be efficient’
y6-t’öa t’6pa ‘skin’
y6-t-gaöa t6-gapa ‘be comfortable’
y6-töa t6pa ‘harden’
y-a-köa a-k6pa ‘malinger’
y6-k’6mba k’Gr6pa ‘hit, break at once’
y6-t-g6mba t6-gr6pa ‘stoop’
y-a-n-sGraöa a-n-sGrapa ‘suffocate, choke’
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 49

Penultimate /g/: y6-ga w6ka ‘hit by stone, stab’3

y6-]ga n6ka ‘coagulate’
y6-zraga zGraka ‘spread’
Penultimate /d/: y-a-öda a-ö6ta ‘marry off, give in marriage’
y6-öda b6ta ‘take’
y6-fda/y6-fta f6ta ‘untie’
y6-gda g6ta ‘pour, draw liquid from a source’
Penultimate /z/: y-a-gza a-g6sa ‘burp’
y6-öza b6sa ‘enlarge ()’
y6-gza g6sa ‘own, buy’
Exceptions: y6-fga f6ga ‘blow’
y6-f6nda fGn6da ‘burst’ (< )
y6-gwda gw6da ‘hurt’
y6-k’wada k’wada ‘rave, talk nonsense’
y6-nda n6da ‘help, drive’
y6-xda x6da ‘abjure, betray’
y6-wza w6za ‘shine’
Given our assumption that the /A/ of these verbs is their final radical, devoicing
affects the geminate penult as usual since it is the rightmost obstruent. It also
follows that there is no Perfective verbal template CVCV in Chaha. The
underlying minimal Perfective verbal template is CVCCVC. Verbs such as g6pa,
from above, have the minimal CVCCVC Perfective template but their final
radical fuses with the preceding /6/ and their geminate penult devoices and
degeminates, as dictated by (2a).
Degemination applies without devoicing in the exceptions of (5). Again, this
is usually attributed to a claim that the exceptions are loans. Nevertheless, as I
said earlier, I see no reason to treat verbs such as g6pa ‘has entered’ and w6ka
‘has stabbed’ as native (just because they devoice their penult since if not they
could have been treated as coming from Amharic g6bba and w6gga) and f6ga
‘has blown’ and gw6da ‘has hurt’ as loans (just because they do not devoice their
penult). In my view, each exception is idiosyncratic and has nothing to do with
it being borrowed or native. The relatively high number of exceptions in (5) may
also be due to the fact that some [a]’s diachronically originate from the
pharyngeal fricatives, which can function like obstruents. But fGn6da ‘has burst’
is a loan introduced very recently (with the 1974 revolution, used as in abyot

3. The stem-initial /U/ found in the Perfective /U6gg6A/ → [w6ka] ‘has stabbed’ deletes in the
Jussive /y6-UgA/ → [y6ga] ‘let him stab!’ See §7.3.2 for discussion.
50 SOUND MUTATIONS

fGn6da-m ‘revolution has burst’). The n in fGn6da is also exceptional as we

normally have r in this context, e.g fGr6ta ‘has splashed’. This can be attributed
to the fact that it is borrowed.

2.2.3 When the final radical is a high vocoid (/U/ or /I/)

Surface biconsonantal stems may arise also from triradicals with a final vocoid
/U/ or /I/. For instance, the stem of t’6pw6 ‘has sucked’ is U-final /t’6öö6U/ but
/U/ floats and labializes ö (see Chapter 7 on this). Similarly, a-ç6p6 ‘has hidden’
is I-final /x6öö6I/ but due to the floating nature of /I/ and the impossibility of
palatalizing ö, the I skips to x (see Chapter 3 on x/k alternation). (Velars can be
palatalized even by a nonadjacent I.) In this account, the final radical of the
verbs in (6) is /U/ or /I/, which are sonorants. The geminate penult of the
Perfective is therefore the rightmost obstruent. It devoices and degeminates
according to (2a). Whether devoicing applies when /U/ and /I/ are at their
underlying/final or surface position makes no difference since the geminate
penult is the rightmost obstruent in all cases.
(6) Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is /U/ or /I/
Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /ö/: y6-t’u (< y6-t’Göw) t’6pw6 ‘suck’
y-a-ç6ö a-ç6p6 ‘hide’
Penultimate /g/: y6-d6gy d6ky6 ‘brew’
y-6r6gy 6r6ky6 ‘throw  to someone’
y6-m 6g
w y
mw6ky6 ‘bury’
y6-t-m6rgy t6-mr6ky6 ‘be worsen’
y6-z6\g y
zGr6ky6 ‘speak’
Penultimate /d/: y6-gaj gac6 ‘rope the legs’
y6-fj f6c6/f6j6 ‘engage, get rid of
tapeworm’
y-a-saj/y-a-sac a-sac6 ‘step over ’
Penultimate /z/: y6-gaŠ gaw6 ‘raid’
y-6Š aw6/aŠ6 ‘see’
y6-t-k’GraŠ t6-k’raw6/t6-k’raŠ6‘look here and there’
Exceptions: y6-sgy s6gy6 ‘call a witness’
y-a-sraj a-sraj6 ‘eke out, stretch out’
w
y6-k’ (G)Š k’ 6Š6
w
‘have dysentery’
Even though the rightmost geminate obstruent in (6) devoices and degeminates
as expected, we have three exceptions where devoicing is not observed. Again,
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 51

to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to consider these verbs loans.

They are lexical exceptions which do not even have a corresponding Amharic
cognate. In addition, devoicing is optional in three verbs underlined in (6). This
makes them neutral with respect to the hypotheses about devoicing. Nevertheless,
it is noticeable so far that devoicing tends to be optional when the penult is a
coronal (cf. as6r/az6r and n6t6r/ n6d6r from (4)). Coronals are apt to behave
differently because they are the only series with voicing contrast.

2.2.4 When the final radical is a bilabial (/ö/ or /m/)

The verbs listed in (7) have a final radical /ö/ or /m/. It is argued in §1.3.1 that
a noninitial simplex /ö/, i.e. [ö], is a sonorant. Similarly, /m/ is a sonorant. Thus,
the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent, which should devoice and
degeminate following hypothesis (2a). In three verbs the geminate penult
devoices and degeminates as expected. But it only degeminates in the last two
verbs in (7).
(7) Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is /ö/ or /m/
Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /g/: y6-t-uz6g6ö t-oz6k6ö ‘regret’
Penultimate /d/: y6-sdGö s6t6ö ‘curse’
y6-g6rdGm gGr6t6m ‘break  in two’
Exceptions: y6-nz6ö n6z6ö ‘be flexible’
y6-xdGm x6d6m ‘look after’
Here, we have only a penultimate g or d. But hypothesis (2a) also predicts that
a penultimate ö should surface as p in the Perfective when the final radical is /ö/
or /m/. More ö- or m-final verbs, which involve a second radical /I/ (§2.2.7), a
doubled final radical (§2.3.1) or total reduplication (§2.3.3), show that geminate
penultimate /öö/ devoice and degeminate whenever ö or m are the final radicals.
There is no verb with a penultimate ö and a final m, which I believe is due to
the , to allow us to see if ö is devoiced when the final radical is m.

2.2.5 When the final radical is an obstruent other than [t]

The penult of the verbs below does not devoice in the Perfective. These are some
of the n6g6d-type verbs. What is common to all these verbs is that their final
radical is an obstruent other than t, i.e. it is an ejective, a fricative or a voiced stop.
52 SOUND MUTATIONS

(8) Degemination without devoicing in n6g6d-type verbs4

Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /ö/: y6-gaöz gab6z ‘invite’ (< )
y6-gw6bGz gw6b6z ‘be brave’ (< )
y6-dGös d6b6s ‘enlarge’
y y
y6-g aös g ab6s ‘be sick due to excess food’
y6-t’Gös t’6b6s ‘roast ()’
y-a-saök’ a-sab6k’ ‘sneak’
y-6bGk’ ab6k’ ‘become moldy’
y6-c’-c’aö6k’ t6-c’ab6k’ ‘be squeezed’
y6-t’-t’aö6k’ t6-t’ab6k’ ‘get stuck’
y6-t’ö6k’ t’6b6k’ ‘be tightened’
y6-zGök’ z6b6k’ ‘daub’
y6-gwGöt’/
y6-gwö6t’ gw6b6t’ ‘be stooped’ (< )
y6-g6röGt’ gGr6b6t’ ‘turn inside out’
y6-k’Göt’ k’6b6t’ ‘become naughty’
y6-mb6t’ n6b6t’ ‘warm up, be flexible’
y6-t’Göt’ t’6ö6t’ ‘hold’
y6-t-zraö6t’ t6-zrab6t’ ‘hope, expect, crave’
y-6öd ab6d ‘be crazy’ (< )
y-a-xGöd a-x6b6d ‘defer’
y6-z6bwGd z6bw6d ‘have a mouthful of c’at’
Penultimate /d/: y6-g(G)d(G)f g6d6f ‘break the lent’
(either G drops)
y6-g6rdGf gGr6d6f ‘grind roughly’
y6-ndGf n6d6f ‘fluff cotton, sting’
y6-t’-t’ad6f t6-t’ad6f ‘be in a hurry’ (< )
y-6d(G)g ad6g ‘throw down, make fall’
y6-t-fad6g t6-fad6g ‘endeavor’
Penultimate /z/: y6-nzGk’ n6z6k’ ‘be fortunate’
y6-wzGf w6z6f ‘procrastinate’ (< )

4. Even though ö is expected in the Jussive it is not found in y6-gw6bGz, y-6bGk’ and y6-z6bwGd, maybe
because they are loans. But ö is strengthened in y6-mb6t’ due to the preceding nasal. On the other
hand, ö exceptionally remains sonorant in the Perfective t’6ö6t’.
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 53

Penultimate /g/: y-6g(G)z ag6z ‘help’

y-at-mwag(G)z at-mwag6z ‘off-load a responsibility’
y6-t-mw6gy6z t6-mw6gy6z ‘lean on’
y6-d(G)g(G)s d6g6s ‘feast’ (< )
(either G drops)
y6-]g6s n6g6s ‘reign’
y6-d(G)g(G)f or d6g6f ‘support’
y6-d6ggGf
y6-]gGf n6g6f ‘pick, pluck’
y-6g(G)d ag6d ‘bind, tie’
y6-m6rgGd mGr6g6d ‘act mad’
y6-]gGd n6g6d ‘touch’
y6-s(G)g(G)d s6g6d ‘worship’
(either G drops)
y6-z(G)g(G)d z6g6d ‘remember, miss’
(either G drops)
The continuant obstruents [f, s, z, x], voiced stops [b, d, g], voiceless stops [p, k]
and ejective stops [t’, k’] (and their labialized or palatalized forms) exhaust all
the obstruents different from [t] found in the phonetic inventory of Chaha.
Notice that not all the obstruents listed are found as a final radical in (8).
Particularly, [b, p, k] are not found as a final radical of these verbs whereas every
underlying ejective, fricative and voiced obstruent is found. A simplex [b] is
normally found only word-initially or after an [m] and that is why it is not found
as a final radical. That [p] is not found has also an independent reason, i.e. it is
not an underlying phoneme of Chaha and it can be found only as a simplified
/öö/ (cf. the ö/p alternation in (4), (5) and (6)), a well-defined context. Thus, it
cannot be found as a final radical. Similarly, [k] is not an underlying phoneme
(see Chapter 3 for justification) and it can be found only as a simplified /gg/ (cf.
the g/k alternation in (4), (5), (6) and (7)) or a strengthened /x/, and a final
position is neither a devoicing nor a strengthening context. Thus, [k] cannot be
found as a final radical.
A single verb, namely /mI6zz6x/ → [mes6x] ‘has ruminated’, is found in
which the penult is a voiced obstruent and the final radical is x. (The voiced
penult of /mI6zz6x/ is found in all Gurage dialects which do not exhibit geminate
devoicing, cf. Leslau 1979.) Devoicing in this verb shows that a final x forms a
m6k6r-type verb whereas my analysis predicts that it should be a n6g6d-type verb
since its final radical is neither a sonorant nor t. This is the only n6g6d-type verb
to be an exception for hypothesis (2b) by devoicing its penult.
54 SOUND MUTATIONS

Leslau (1948: 44) and (1979: lxix) attributes the absence of devoicing in
some of the verbs in (8) to the presence of another voiced obstruent in the root,
e.g. n6g6d ‘has touched’. While this accounts for why devoicing does not apply
when there is a voiced obstruent in the root it does not explain why it is blocked
in words such as n6g6f ‘has picked’ and n6b6t’ ‘has warmed up’, from (8). These
verbs show that the presence of a voiced obstruent is not necessary to block
geminate devoicing. Moreover, we saw in (4), (5), (6) and (7) that devoicing is
not necessarily blocked by a voiced obstruent, as g and z in g6dd6r → g6t6r ‘has
put to sleep’ and z6gg6r → z6k6r ‘has jumped’, from (4), do not block it. This
shows that the mere presence of a voiced obstruent is insufficient to block
geminate devoicing unless it is the final radical.
The absence of devoicing in most of the above verbs is considered an
exception and is attributed to their Amharic origin by Hetzron (1977: 51–52),
Leslau (1979: lxviii) and McCarthy (1986a: 219). Nevertheless, the following
reasons militate against this analysis. First, m6k6r-type Chaha verbs devoice their
penult regardless of their Amharic cognates, as shown by the Amharic/Chaha
pairs g6bba/g6pa ‘has entered’, s6bb6r/s6p6r ‘has broken’ and m6gg6l/m6k6r ‘has
suppurated’. Second, most verbs from (8) do not even have a corresponding
Amharic cognate, e.g. d6b6s ‘has enlarged’, mGr6g6d ‘has acted mad’, ad6g ‘has
thrown down’ and n6z6k’ ‘has been fortunate’ (see also Goldenberg 1994: 55).
Third, it is unjustified to consider forms such as n6g6s ‘has reigned’ as borrow-
ings from Amharic. Every clan in Chaha had a nGgwGs ‘king’ and the ceremony
a-r6g6s ‘appoint a king’ long before Amharic speakers arrived in the Gurage
land. Many such verbs, e.g. t’6b6s ‘has roasted ()’ and s6g6d ‘has worshipped’,
are common to both languages and there is no evidence that borrowing was ever
involved. Quite the contrary, older speakers who know no Amharic use and
regard these verbs as native Chaha.
In my analysis, the verbs in (8) are not considered exceptions to devoicing.
In these verbs, the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent and hence does
not satisfy the structural description of devoicing. These medial geminate
obstruents fall under hypothesis (2b), which states that they should degeminate
without being devoiced. According to my analysis, verbs such as *n6p6t’, from
–röt’ ‘warm’, and *t6-x6p6d, from –xöd ‘respect’, where a voiced geminate penult
devoices regardless of a following obstruent other than t, is excluded. The
attested output, e.g. n6b6t’ and a-x6b6d from the above list, shows that the
prediction is borne out. To my knowledge, there is no devoiced geminate that is
followed by an obstruent other than t (and the exception [mes6x]). Borrowed
n6g6d-type verbs confirm the hypothesis in (2b). In my view, they all are
n6g6d-type verbs and not exceptions.
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 55

2.2.6 When the final radical is [t]

The sound t is the only plain voiceless stop to be found as a final radical. When
t is the final radical the penult can be a sonorant, e.g. c’6m6t ‘has hit the target’
or a voiceless obstruent, e.g. k6f6t ‘has opened’. But a geminate obstruent
devoices and degeminates when the final radical is t, e.g. w6p6t (not *w6b6t) ‘has
chosen’. Accordingly, a n6g6d-type verb such as *w6b6t is not found. In not
allowing a voiced geminate penult to remain voiced, t behaves like the final
sonorant /r/ in s6p6r (not *s6b6r) ‘has broken ’ and unlike the stem-final
obstruents of (8).
The list in (9) below exhausts t-final verbs whose penult can show voicing
alternation. Note that the list contains only six verbs all of which are quadrirad-
icals (assuming type B verbs to be I-second quadriradicals, see 1.1.6 and 2.2.7).
Triradicals such as *g6p6t are not found. The geminate penult of these
quadriradicals devoices and degeminates. There is no native t-final Chaha verb
such as *gy6b6t where degemination applies without devoicing. The exception
tob6t ‘has become a Muslim’ is a loan.
(9) Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is t
Jussive Perfective
y6-g6p(G)t gy6p6t ‘gallop’
y6-g6k(G)t gy6ky6t ‘accompany on departure’
y6-s6p(G)t w6p6t ‘choose’
y6-s6mbGt sGr6p6t ‘sojourn’5
y6-zaöt zap6t ‘lose one’s way’
Exception: y6-tobGt tob6t ‘become a Muslim’ (< Arabic)
Disregarding the single verb /mI6zz6x/ → [mes6x] ‘has ruminated’ mentioned in
the preceding subsection, the list in (9) also exhausts all Chaha verbs in which
the final radical is an obstruent and where the penult still devoices. In this
respect, t is different from all other obstruents. In my view, its uniqueness
follows from the assumption that it is a default consonant in Chaha (see Brose-
low 1984 for the same generalization in Amharic and the articles in Paradis and
Prunet 1991 on coronal underspecification in general). Devoicing in these verbs
strongly suggests that t lacks some features of other obstruents. Notice that the
penult also devoices in the Jussive of the first three verbs in (9). I will argue in

5. Also relevant are its derived forms such as y-a-srap(G)t ‘let him (the person who stays) say good-
bye !’ a-srap6t ‘(the person who stays) has said good-bye’, yG-t-sGrap6t ‘he (the person who leaves)
says good-bye’ and t6-srap6t ‘(the person who leaves) has said good-bye’.
56 SOUND MUTATIONS

the immediately following section that gemination occurs in the Jussive of these
verbs to compensate for depalatalization. On the other hand, devoicing and
degemination in both the Jussive and Perfective follow from hypothesis (2a).

2.2.7 Devoicing in the Jussive and Perfective of I-second quadriradicals

In the following verbs, the penult is voiceless in both the Jussive and Perfective.
For instance, in (10a), a voiced penult is found neither in the Jussive nor in the
Perfective. But in (10b), devoicing is optional in the Jussive.
(10) Devoicing and degemination in both the Jussive and Perfective
a. Obligatory devoicing in both the Jussive and Perfective
Jussive Perfective
y6-g6p(G)t gy6p6t ‘gallop’ (repeated from (9))
y6-s6p(G)t w6p6t ‘choose’ (repeated from (9))
y6-t’-t’ep t6-c’ep6 ‘be careful’6
y6-g6k(G)t gy6ky6t ‘accompany (repeated from
(9))
y6-m6s(G)x mes6x ‘ruminate’ (only example with
x#)
y6-r6kGr n6ky6r ‘win in a lawsuit’
y6-m6kGr m6ky6r ‘burn, light the fire’
y6-d6kwGr/y6-d6gwGr j6kw6r ‘wilt, droop’
y6-s6kGr/y6-s6gGr w6k6r/w6g6r ‘change’
y6-d6kGm j6k6m ‘bash, hit with the fist’
y6-r6kGm n6ky6m ‘mount, e.g. a horse’
y6-z6kGö Š6k6ö ‘bar’
y6-g6tGö gy6t6ö ‘place  diagonally’
b. Optional devoicing in the Jussive
y6-k’6pGr/y6-k’6öGr k’y6p6r ‘help’
y6-d6pGr/y6-d6öGr j6p6r ‘finish’
y6-x6pGr/y6-x6öGr ç6p6r ‘reply, resume speaking’
y-a-k’6pGr/y-a-k’6öGr a-k’y6p6r‘hand’
y6-z6pGr/y6-z6öGr Š6p6r ‘return’

6. The root of t6-c’ep6 ‘be careful’ must be –t’IöI. Due to the impossibility of palatalizing ö, the
stem-final I of /t’I6öö6I/ skips and docks on the first 6. The first I palatalizes t’ whereas the second
one causes the fronting of 6 to e. Evidence for this analysis is that [e] is still found in the Jussive,
even though [c’] has depalatalized to [t’]. Note also that a second-radical /I/ do not affects both C1
and V1 at the same time, cf. w6p6t not *wep6t, from –sIöt.
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 57

c. No devoicing (exceptions)
y6-g6bGr gy6b6r ‘pay tribute, submit’
y-a-d6gGr a-j6g6r ‘trouble ()’
y6-t’6gGr c’6g6r ‘be cruel, refuse’
y6-m6zGr mez6r ‘count’
The first problem that needs to be addressed is whether the penult of the verbs
in (10) is underlyingly voiced or voiceless. By stating that devoicing is involved
in both columns of (10), I am obviously claiming that the penult of these verbs
is an underlyingly voiced radical. Four arguments substantiate this claim. The
first argument is that the voiced alternate ö is found in the Jussive of (10b). In
addition, as was shown in §1.2.3, a nongeminated p is inexistent in Chaha and
that it cannot be an underlying penult of any verb (this takes care of (10b) and
the first three verbs in (10a)). Second, the voiced alternate is found in forms
where the penult is reduplicated, e.g. j6kw6r ‘wilt’ vs. a-jgwakw6r ‘cause to wilt’
and j6k6m ‘hit with the fist’ vs. jGg6k6m ‘hit with the fist repeatedly’. I will also
show in Chapter 3 that Chaha has no simplex k which is not followed by a fric-
ative or /A/. The k in (10a) is neither followed by a fricative nor /A/, hence it
is not a simplex k (this takes care of the rest in (10a) except the last one).
Third, the voiced obstruent of these verbs appear also in corresponding nominal
forms such as gyGdö-ar ‘ placed diagonally’. This noun and the verb gy6t6ö
‘has placed  diagonally’ are derived from the same root –gIdö, showing that
the t in gy6t6ö is a devoiced dd. This explains the last verb in (10a) and it rein-
forces the second argument since some of the verbs with k in (10) have corres-
ponding nouns with g. For instance, w6-zg6ö ‘door’ and y6-z6kGö/Š6k6ö ‘bar’ are
derived from –zIgö. In addition, nouns such as jGgwm-ar ‘fist’ and jagm-ar
‘strong fight’ are derived from –dIgm and these nouns and the verb y6-d6kGm/
j6k6m ‘hit with the fist’ have the same root –dIgm, whose penult is g. Finally,
in the geminating dialect Eža, all these verbs have a voiced geminate as in
y6-d6ggGm, not a voiceless penult. Note that, in contrast with these verbs, there
are verbs whose penult is always voiceless. For instance, k in y6-]kGs/n6k6s
‘bite’ does not become g in any nominal form, e.g. t6-rakaw (not *t6-ragaw ) ‘one
who bites’.
Gemination in the Jussive of (10) has a different cause from the one in the
Perfective. I claim that the penult geminates in the Jussive because it is spread
to the C slot of a deleted I (due to depalatalization in the Jussive) as shown in
(11a). Depalatalization occurs when the radical I is immediately followed by CC
58 SOUND MUTATIONS

as in (11a) (i.e. ICiCj → CiCiCj, the G between Ci and Cj is epenthetic).7

The second C slot of the stem in (11a) is originally occupied by the second
radical I, which delinks due to the depalatalization in the Jussive. The g is linked
to the vacant C of I. Gemination in the Jussive of this class of verbs (i.e.
I-second quadriradicals, otherwise known as type B) is therefore due to compen-
sation. There is no depalatalization in the Perfective, (11b), and I occupies its C
slot. (We will see later that what docks on the preceding consonant is only the
terminal features of /I/.) However, the Perfective has always one more C slot
than the Jussive (which causes gemination). The g is therefore a geminate. (A
more explicit representation of a palatalized segment, such as j in (11b), is given
in Appendix 2A.)
(11) Compensatory and Perfective gemination in an I-second quadriradical
a. y6-C 6 C C G C b. C C 6 C C 6 C
=
d I g m [d I] g m
y6-d6kGm ‘Let him bash!’ j6k6m ‘has bashed’
In (11), the penult is a geminate in both the Jussive and Perfective. In addition,
the final radical is a sonorant. Hence, the geminate penult is the rightmost
obstruent, which devoices and degeminates according to hypothesis (2a).
Verbs of (10b) are characterized by a penultimate /ö/ and a final /r/ and in
this case compensatory gemination is optional as ö and p in the Jussive are in
free variation. In (10a), on the other hand, either the penult is different from /ö/
(all except the first three) or the final radical is different from /r/ (the first three)
and in these cases devoicing is obligatory. This difference between the Jussives
of (10a) and (10b) suggests that compensatory devoicing is optional only when

7. My argument for the present claim is that (ignoring suffix-triggered depalatalization, to be

discussed in Chapter 9) in all the stems given below /I/ docks on the immediately preceding
consonant except in the Jussive of the I-second quadriradical y6-d6Igm → y6-d6kGm and what is
different about y6-d6Igm is that it alone has the ICiCj configuration. For different opinions on this,
see Leslau (1957: 482), Hudson (1974: 213), Hetzron (1977: 48), Lowenstamm (1986: 171–3), Rose
(1992: 110), Petros (1993a: 101–6), Prunet and Petros (1996: 328) and Chamora (1997: 95–102).
Jussive Imperfective Perfective
I-final quadriradical y6-z6rgI [y6z6\gy] yG-zr6ggI [yGzr6ky] zr6gg6I [zGr6ky6]
I-second quadriradical y6-d6Igm [y6d6kGm] yG-dI6ggm [yGj6kGm] dI6gg6m [j6k6m]
I-final transitive triradical y6-fdI [y6fj] yG-f6dI [yGf6j] f6dd6I [f6c6]
I-final intransitive triradical y6-ms6I [y6mw] yG-m6sI [yGm6w] m6ss6I [m6w6]
I-second transitive triradical y6-sIm [y6wGm] yG-s6Im [yGw6m] s6II6m [w6m]
I-second intransitive triradical y6-k’I6t’ [y6k’yGt’] yG-k’6It’ [yGk’y6t’] k’6II6t’ [k’y6t’]
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 59

it does not neutralize a contrast and the final radical is /r/. As ö and p are not
contrastive the free variation in the Jussive of (10b) can easily be tolerated.
The expected devoicing is not attested in the four exceptions (gy6b6r,
a-j6g6r, c’6g6r and mez6r), (10c), (cf. the ungrammatical *gy6p6r, *a-j6k6r,
*c’6k6r and *mes6r). It is possible to remotely relate these exceptions to Amharic
g6bb6r, c6gg6r, c’6kk6n and m6zz6n respectively. But due to the reasons I gave in
§2.2.5 I do not consider them as loans. Furthermore, a morphological piece of
evidence that they are not loans from Amharic comes from a-j6g6r, which in
Chaha requires the prefix a- while it does not allow this prefix in Amharic (cf.
*a-c6gg6r). If Chaha borrowed this word it would have borrowed the free form
c6gg6r, and not the impossible Amharic form *a-c6gg6r. In my analysis, absence
of devoicing in the above exceptions has no explanation. On the other hand, the
fact that b in y6-g6bGr/gy6b6r is a stop (and not ö) shows that it is a simplified
geminate. Not also that degemination applies without exception.
Verbs of the n6g6d-type which are also I-second quadriradicals are very
rare. I found only one such verb, shown in (12). (But it is also possible to
consider the three verbs with a penultimate [b] mentioned in note 4 of this
chapter as belonging to this class in which case the lack of palatalization in them
will remain unaccounted for.) The penult of this verb is a geminate in the
Perfective as usual and in the Jussive, too, to compensate for depalatalization.
But in both cases, the geminate is not the rightmost obstruent and it degeminates
without being devoiced, in accordance with hypothesis (2b).
(12) Degemination without devoicing in both the Jussive and Perfective
Jussive Perfective
y6-t’6bGk’ c’6b6k’ ‘extract juice’
Another piece of evidence for the claim that devoicing in the Jussive of I-second
quadriradicals is due to compensation comes from their frequentative forms.
These have no depalatalization in the Jussive, e.g. y6-k’yö6öGr ‘let him help
slightly!’ While ö devoices in the Jussive, as in y6-k’6pGr ‘let him help!’, the
same ö does not devoice in y6-k’yö6öGr. Because there is no depalatalization to
compensate for in y6-k’ yö6öGr, depicted in (13a), the penult cannot be geminated,
cf. *y6-k’yö6pGr. This explains the absence of devoicing and corroborates the
claim that devoicing in y6-k’6pGr is due to compensatory reasons, i.e. to compen-
sate for the depalatalization. Note that the impossibility of *y6-k’yö6pGr is not due
to the ö…p string as this is allowed in the Perfective k’yGö6p6r, (13b).
60 SOUND MUTATIONS

(13) Absence of compensatory gemination in the frequentative of I-sec-

ond quadriradicals
a. y6-C C C 6 C G C b. C C G C 6 C C 6 C

[k’ I] ö ö r [k’ I] ö ö r
y6-k’yö6öGr k’yGö6p6r
‘Let him help slightly!’ ‘has helped slightly’
In (13a), there is no depalatalization and I occupies its original C slot. Therefore,
ö cannot be geminated, which explains why it is not devoiced. The ö devoices in
the Perfective because this aspect has always one more C slot than the Jussive,
which gives rise to the Perfective gemination. The öö devoices and degeminates
because it is the rightmost obstruent, i.e. devoicing and degemination apply
according to hypothesis (2a).
Additional evidence from the Jussive of totally reduplicated verbs support
the position that gemination (i.e. phonetic devoicing) in the Jussive is compensa-
tory. Some totally reduplicated verbs (to be defined in Chapter 6) delete their
antepenult, e.g. /z6mzGm/ → [z6sGm] ‘be wet’ (to be compared with zGm6s6m ‘has
become wet). The deletion of /m/ in [z6sGm] results in compensatory devoicing
of /z/ and supports my proposal. Note also that /z/ devoices in [z6sGm] because
it is the rightmost obstruent. Compensatory devoicing does not apply in cases
where /z/ is not the rightmost obstruent, e.g. /z6fzGf/ → [z6zGf] (not *[z6sGf]) ‘put
 to soak!’ See §2.3.3 and §2.3.4 for detailed discussion on compensatory
devoicing in totally reduplicated verbs. Finally, I show in Appendix 2A that the
compensatory gemination proposed in this section also gives a straightforward
account for the elsewhere gemination of Amharic type B verbs.
From a total of 142 verbs that we have investigated in this section the
penultimate consonant of 20 Perfective verbs is not devoiced even though their
final radical is a sonorant. In my view, these 20 verbs (14.08% of the total 142)
are lexical exceptions, which deviate from hypothesis (2a). Some of these have
an Amharic cognate, e.g. n6da ‘has helped’, while others do not, e.g. s6gy6 ‘has
called a witness’, a-sraj6 ‘has eked out’ k’w6Š6 ‘has had dysentery’ and k’wada
‘has raved’. Given this and the fact that many verbs with an Amharic cognate
have a devoiced penult in Chaha, e.g. n6ka ‘has coagulated’ and s6p6r ‘has
broken’, I maintain that it is wrong to attribute the absence of devoicing in the
exceptions to their being loans. There are also six verbs in which the expected
devoicing is optional which cannot be attributed to borrowing. However, in all 41
verbs (listed in (8) and (12)) in which the geminate penult is not the rightmost
obstruent, degemination applies without devoicing. We will see in the following
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 61

section that exceptions to geminate devoicing are inexistent in verbs with

doubled radicals.

2.3 Devoicing and degemination in verbs with doubled radicals

Verbs involving voiced geminates and a doubled radical are discussed in this section.

2.3.1 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled final radical

In (14), /ö/ is both the penult and the final consonant. I follow the standard
assumption that the two consonants are one underlyingly so C1C2C2 derive from
biradicals and C1C2C3C3 from triradicals (see McCarthy 1981, Lowenstamm and
El M’hammedi 1996 and Prunet and Petros 1996). As a penult of the Perfective,
it is [p] in both (14a) and (14b). As a penult of the Jussive, it is [p] in (14b)
whereas it is [ö] in (14a) (unless it is postnasal). On the other hand, as a final
radical, it is [ö] in both the Jussive and Perfective of (14a, b).
(14) Devoicing and degemination when the doubled radical is /ö/
Jussive Perfective
a. y6-k’öGö k’6p6ö ‘shave’
y6-t’ö6ö t’6p6ö ‘be narrow’
y6-xöGö x6p6ö ‘encircle’
y-a-x6mbGö a-xr6p6ö ‘cover up’
y-a-z6röGö a-zr6p6ö ‘incline’
y-a-^-c’aöGö a-^-c’ap6ö ‘blink’
y-a-^-ŠaöGö a-^-Šap6ö ‘soar’
b. y-a-t’6pGö a-c’6p6ö ‘curtain off’
y6-z6pGö Š6p6ö ‘defend, block the passage’
y6-d6pGö j6p6ö ‘dam’
Exception: y-a-mbGö a-r6b6ö ‘read’ (< )
As usual, the penult is a geminate in the Perfective. It is geminated also in the
Jussive of (14b) to compensate for depalatalization, i.e. y6-d6IöGö → y6-d6ööGö
→ y6-d6pGö, as we saw in §2.2.7. Furthermore, I have argued in §1.3.1 that a
nongeminated /ö/ is a sonorant. Hence, /öö/ (i.e. bb) in these verbs is the
rightmost obstruent. Accordingly, hypothesis (2a) predicts that /öö/ should
devoice and degeminate. The prediction is borne out in all native verbs of this
type. The only exception is a-r6b6ö, which degeminates without being devoiced,
maybe because it is a clear loan from Amharic.
62 SOUND MUTATIONS

My account of the verbs in (14) is that geminate devoicing does not take
into consideration whether the penultimate and the final consonants originate
from the same radical or not. In other words, geminate devoicing does not make
a distinction between …CiCiVCj# and …CiCiVCi#.
Let us now turn to the geminate penult of the Perfective in (15). These have
a …CiCiVCi# configuration in which CiCi degeminates without being devoiced.
(15) Degemination without devoicing when the doubled radical is a
voiced obstruent
Jussive Perfective
Doubled /g/: y-a-dragGg a-drag6g ‘revive’
y-a-fagGg a-fag6g ‘retreat, do  unenthusiastically’
y-a-zagGg a-zag6g ‘delay’
y-6gGg ag6g ‘be pumped up, be empty’
y6-ö6rgGg bGr6g6g ‘be startled, bolt’
y6-fg6g f6g6g ‘die without being slaughtered’
y6-f w(6)gGg f w6g6g ‘cut from the root’
y6-m6rgGg mGr6g6g ‘make tall and straight’
y6-t’6gGg c’6g6g ‘mow (grass and mud together)’
Doubled /d/: y-a-ö6rdGd a-ör6d6d ‘add too much of  (e.g. salt)’
y-6dGd ad6d ‘collect, drink much’
y6-f6rdGd fGr6d6d ‘roll up one’s sleeves or dress’
y6-gdGd g6d6d ‘pierce, germinate and break out’
y6-g6rdGd gGr6d6d ‘cut in big logs’
y6-mw(6)dGd mw6d6d ‘choose one’s judges’
y6-m6rdGd mGr6d6d ‘whip’
y6-nd6d n6d6d ‘burn down’
y6-sdGd s6d6d ‘chase’
y6-t-gad6d t6-gad6d ‘wrestle for a long time’
y6-t-rad6d t6-rad6d ‘get mad’
Doubled /z/: y-6z6z az6z ‘order’
y6-bazGz baz6z ‘be in low spirits’
y6-c’azGz c’az6z ‘be empty (a house, a village)’
y6-d6rzGz dGr6z6z ‘be blunt’
y6-fz6z f6z6z ‘be better’
y6-g6özGz gGö6z6z ‘become numb’
y6-k’6özGz k’Gö6z6z ‘be inert’
y6-mzGz m6z6z ‘draw out (e.g. thread from cloth)’
y6-nz6z n6z6z ‘dream’
y6-t’6mzGz t’Gm6z6z ‘twist’
y6-t-raz6z t6-raz6z ‘make one’s last will’
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 63

These verbs have a geminate penult in the Perfective. However, the penult is
not the rightmost obstruent. Accordingly, hypothesis (2b) predicts that the
penult should degeminate without being devoiced, and the prediction holds
without exception.
I stated that /öö/ devoices in y6-d6pGö ‘let him dam!’ from (14b), to
compensate for depalatalization. However, such devoicing is impossible in y6-
t’6gGg (not *y6-t’6kGg) ‘let him mow!’ from (15), regardless of the depalatalizat-
ion. In my account, this is not because y6-t’6gGg lacks compensatory gemination.
Rather, the absence of devoicing follows from the hypothesis that degemination
but not devoicing applies when the penult is not the rightmost obstruent i.e. y6-
t’6IgGg → y6-t’6ggGg → y6-t’6gGg.
McCarthy (1986a: 215ff.) gives an explanation different from mine for the
penult devoicing in (14) and its absence in (15). In his account, these verbs have
a …VCiCiVCi… configuration with two levels of representation. The first is
prior to tier conflation, depicted in (16a), in which ö and z are triply linked. The
second is after tier conflation, depicted in (16b), in which only the penultimate
ö and z are doubly linked.
(16) a. Prior to tier conflation
C 6 C C 6 C C 6 C C 6 C

k’ ö f z
b. After tier conflation
C 6 C C 6 C C 6 C C 6 C

k’ ö ö f z z
k’6p6ö ‘has shaved’ f6z6z ‘has been better’
McCarthy attributes devoicing in k’6p6ö and its absence in f6z6z to the claim that
devoicing in the former is feature-filling (because b and p are not contrastive),
which can apply postlexically (i.e. after tier conflation), while devoicing in the
latter is feature-changing (because z and s are contrastive), which must apply
lexically (i.e. prior to tier conflation). According to his analysis, neither ö nor z
can devoice prior to tier conflation because they are triply linked and Geminate
Inalterability blocks devoicing. On the other hand, Geminate Inalterability cannot
block devoicing after tier conflation since the penult is separated from the final
radical. In this derived context, the postlexical feature-filling devoicing rule can
apply, affecting ö in k’6p6ö and resulting in a devoiced p. However, the lexical
feature-changing devoicing rule affecting z cannot apply in the derived context
and that explains why devoicing does not occur in f6z6z. Yet, degemination
64 SOUND MUTATIONS

applies in both k’6p6ö and f6z6z, which led McCarthy (1986a: 218) to claim that
it is postlexical since otherwise it would be incorrectly predicted to be blocked
by Geminate Inalterability. See Scobbie (1991: 143ff.) for arguments against this
analysis based on different reasons.
In my analysis, devoicing and degemination cannot even tell us whether the
prior-to-tier conflation stage, (16a), exists or not. (See Angoujard 1988, Gafos
1996 and Rose 1997 for a claim that such long-distance geminates are better
analyzed as copies rather than spreading.) In addition, neither Geminate
Inalterability nor rule ordering are the right explanation for the voicing
difference between k’6p6ö and f6z6z. In my analysis, the hypothesis in (2a),
combined with the claim that ö is a sonorant, dictates that the geminate öö in
(16) should devoice and degeminate. I claim that the penults in s6t6ö ‘has
cursed’, (4c), and k’6p6ö, (16), devoice for the same reason: they are both
geminates and the rightmost obstruent. Devoicing applies irrespective of whether
it is feature-changing or feature-filling. Similarly, the geminate penults in t’6b6s
‘has roasted ()’, from (8), and f6z6z, (16), remain voiced because they are not
the rightmost obstruent, and this irrespective of whether devoicing is feature-
changing or feature-filling.
In the present analysis, the absence of geminate devoicing in the verbs of
(15) receives a unified account with all other verbs ending with a final obstruent
other than t. The fact that z in f6z6z, (16), is the penultimate and final radical is
not at all a factor for the absence of geminate devoicing. Had a penultimate zz
devoiced when the final radical is any other obstruent such as k’ (i.e. if we had
the ungrammatical *n6s6k’ instead of n6z6k’, from (8)), the triply linked configu-
ration …VCiCiVCi… could have been invoked to explain the absence of
geminate devoicing in words like f6z6z, from (16), as McCarthy (1986a: 211)
does. But, we have seen that a penultimate zz is never devoiced when the final
radical is an obstruent different from t. Attributing the absence of devoicing to
triple-linking is therefore a solution that lacks generality. However, the hypothe-
ses given in (2) are sufficient to explain the complex array of data presented in
this chapter.

2.3.2 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled medial radical

The underlying voiced penult of the verbs in (17) is devoiced in the Perfective.
All these verbs end with a sonorant and, following hypothesis (2a), their
geminate penult is predicted to devoice and degeminate. The prediction holds
without exception. Note again that the penult in the Perfective is in a
[…CiVCiCiV…] configuration and that this does not block devoicing.
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 65

(17) Devoicing and degemination in m6k6r-type medially reduplicated verbs

Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /ö/: y-a-döaöGr a-döap6r ‘do an injustice’
y-a-k’öaöGr a-k’öap6r ‘cover fire with ashes to keep it
alive’
y-a-t’wawGr a-t’wap 6rw
‘show a feeling of sadness’
y6-ŠöaöGr ŠGöap6r ‘turn  inside out’
Penultimate /g/: y-a-jgagGr a-jgak6r ‘be troublesome’
y-a-jgw6gwGr a-jgw6kw6r ‘wither  slightly’
y-a-zgagGr a-zgak6r ‘cause to jump’
y6-wgagGr wGgak6r ‘interchange’
y-a-rgaga a-rgaka ‘calm down ()’
y6-wgaga wGgaka ‘stab repeatedly’
Penultimate /d/: y6-tG-fd6d6r t6-ft6t6r ‘strive’
Penultimate /z/: y-a-wzaza a-wzasa ‘perspire’
y-a-wz6sGr a-wz6s6r ‘roast’
In fact, all other things being equal, devoicing prefers […CiVCiCiV…] rather
than […CiCiV…]. As the verbs in (17) are frequentatives, some of them have a
basic form without doubling discussed in §2.2, where we found a number of
exceptions to devoicing. For instance, penultimate z in (5) w6za is an exception
to devoicing while z devoices in (17) a-wzasa. The same observation holds for
g in (10c) a-j6g6r vs. (17) a-jgak6r. In addition, devoicing in (10a) w6k6r/w6g6r is
optional whereas it is obligatory in (17) wGgak6r. Doubling minimizes the number
of exceptions to devoicing.
In contrast with the verbs in (17), the underlying voiced penult of the verbs
in (18) remains voiced in the Perfective. All these verbs end with an obstruent
and the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent. Hence, it is predicted that
degemination should apply without devoicing, following (2b). Again, the
prediction holds without exception. In addition, devoicing in (17) and its absence
in (18) does not discriminate a penultimate /ö/ from the other voiced obstruents.
This shows that McCarthy’s (1986a: 215) feature-changing versus feature-filling
rationale for devoicing is not the relevant one.
66 SOUND MUTATIONS

(18) Degemination without devoicing in n6g6d-type medially reduplicated

verbs
Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /ö/: y6-t-k’Göaö6z t6-k’öab6z ‘deny’
y6-t-kGöaö6s t6-köab6s ‘be dirty, be messy’
y6-t-röaö6t’ t6-röab6t’ ‘be flexible’
Penultimate /g/: y6-d-g6g6z t-6g6g6z ‘help each other’
y-a-rgag(G)s a-rgag6s ‘flatter (i.e. make reign)’
y6-d-dGgag6f t6-dgag6f ‘support each other’
y6-rg6g(G)f nGg6g6f ‘pick repeatedly’
y-a-rgag(G)t’ a-rgag6t’ ‘make sure’
y-a-zgag(G)d a-zgag6d ‘remind’
y6-rgag(G)d nGgag6d ‘instigate, stir’
Some of these verbs have basic forms (such as n6b6t’, ag6z, n6g6s, n6g6f, z6g6d
and n6g6d, all from (8)). Devoicing applies neither in the basic forms nor in their
reduplicated forms in (18). According to my analysis, whether a geminate voiced
penult is doubled or not, it may not be devoiced when the final radical is an
ejective, a fricative or a voiced stop. But Leslau (1979: lxvii) records incorrectly
t6-köap6s against my t6-köab6s, from (18).
According to McCarthy (1986a: 211), the triply linked configuration
…CiVCiCiV… is responsible for the absence of devoicing in verbs such as
a-rgag6t’ ‘had made sure’, from (18). However, triple linking cannot be responsi-
ble for the absence of devoicing in such verbs since the triply linked g in
a-zgak6r ‘has caused to jump repeatedly’, from (17), is devoiced. Both a-zgak6r
and a-rgag6t’ are derived by penult-reduplication of the respective roots –zgr (cf.
y6-zg6r ‘let him jump!) and –rgt’, found in the unreduplicated adjectival form
GrgGt’ ‘sure’. But we have devoicing only in the former. This shows that attribut-
ing the absence of devoicing to triple linking is incorrect. However, my hypothe-
sis (2a) correctly predicts the devoiced penult k in a-zgak6r because the final
radical r is a sonorant, which makes the underlying geminate penult the right-
most obstruent. Similarly, hypothesis (2b) correctly predicts the voiced penult g
in a-rgag6t’ because the final radical t’ is an obstruent, which makes the
underlying geminate penult a nonrightmost obstruent.

2.3.3 Voiced geminates in totally reduplicated verbs

All the verbs in (19) have a devoiced penult in the Perfective. Note also that the
antepenult in (19a) is deleted in the Jussive and that the penult devoices and
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 67

degeminates, except in y6-]-g6gGö, for which I have no explanation. What is

common to these verbs is that their final radical is a sonorant, i.e. they are of the
m6k6r-type. (Totally reduplicated verbs normally have a C16C2C1GC2 Jussive and
C1C26C1C16C2 Perfective patterns even though there are some with a C1C2aC1GC2
Jussive and C1C2aC1C16C2 Perfective patterns.)
(19) m6k6r-type totally reduplicated verbs
a. With a deleted antepenult in the Jussive
Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /g/: y6-g6kGm gGm6k6m ‘chip the rims’
y6-]-g6gGö G]-gGö6k6ö ‘thunder’
Penultimate /d/: y6-d6tGö dGö6t6ö ‘patch’
y6-d6tGm dGm6t6m ‘conclude’
Penultimate /z/: y6-z6sGm zGm6s6m ‘become wet’
b. Without a deleted antepenult in the Jussive
Penultimate /ö/: y-a-m-baöa a-m-bapa ‘pop’
y-a-m-b6röGr a-m-bGr6p6r ‘make fluffy’
Penultimate /g/: y-a-gGöagGö a-gGöak6ö ‘heap’
y-a-]-gGragGr a-]-gGrak6r ‘boycott’
y-a-]-gw6rgwGr a-]-gwGr6kw6r ‘roar’
y6-gw6rgwGr gwGr6kw6r ‘burrow’
y6-]-g6rgGr G]-gGr6k6r ‘mill about’
Penultimate /d/: y-a-n-dGradGr a-n-dGrat6r ‘stagger’
y6-d-dGöad6ö t6-döat6ö ‘be confused’
y6-d-dGrad6r t6-drat6r ‘step on  repeatedly’
y6-d6ndGr dGr6t6r ‘thicken’
y6-d6rdGr dGr6t6r ‘pile’
Penultimate /z/: y-a-n-z6rzGr a-n-zGr6s6r ‘drop here and there’
y6-t-zGöaz6ö t6-zöas6ö ‘be protracted, be prolonged’
y6-zaza zasa ‘act mad’
y6-z6rzGr zGr6s6r ‘cut meat into strips’
y6-Š6Š Š6w6 ‘be(come) cold’
In my view, gemination in the Jussive compensates for the deletion of the ante-
penult, as depicted in (20a). The penult is a geminate in (20b) like in all other
Perfective verbs. In addition, the final radical in both (20a) and (20b) is a sonorant
and the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent. Accordingly, devoicing and
degemination apply to both compensatory and Perfective geminates. This supports
the hypothesis that geminates devoice and degeminate when they are the rightmost
obstruent. Note that the CiVCiCi configuration in y6-g6kGm does not block devoicing.
68 SOUND MUTATIONS

(20) Compensatory and Perfective devoicing in m6k6r-type totally redu-

plicated verbs
a. y6-C 6 C C G C
=
g m g m
y6-g6kGm ‘Let him chip the rims’
b. C G C 6 C C 6 C

g m g m
gGm6k6m ‘has chipped the rims’
Even though y6-g6kGm seems to violate the , its corresponding Perfective
shows that this apparent violation is created by the deletion of the antepenult
only in the Jussive. A labial antepenult deletes as represented in (20a) when it is
immediately followed by a coronal or dorsal obstruent whereas a velar antepenult
deletes only when it is immediately followed by a coronal obstruent, see §6.3 for
detailed discussion.
In the Perfective, the voiced penult in the totally reduplicated verbs of (21)
remains voiced without exception. Again, what all these verbs have in common
is that their final radical is an ejective, a fricative or a voiced stop. Therefore, the
geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent.
(21) n6g6d-type totally reduplicated verbs
a. With a deleted antepenult in the Jussive
Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /d/: y6-d6d(G)f dGf6d6f ‘mix flour with water’
y6-d6d(G)g dGg6d6g ‘stuff’
Penultimate /z/: y-a-z6z(G)g a-zg6z6g ‘throw in a spiral motion’
y6-z6z(G)f zGf6z6f ‘put to soak’
y6-z6z(G)k’ zGk’6z6k’ ‘turn upside down’
b. Without a deleted antepenult in the Jussive
Penultimate /ö/: y-a-ösaös a-ösab6s ‘grope’
y-a-özaöz a-özab6z ‘be scattered, be less in number’
y6-ö6k’öGk’ bGk’6b6k’ ‘ripen/be cooked too much’
y6-ö6söGs bGs6b6s ‘be putrid, be rotten’
y6-ö6t’öGt’ bGt’6b6t’ ‘stir violently’
Penultimate /g/: y-a-]-gGzag(G)z a-]-gGzag6z ‘stagger, reel’
y-a-]-gw6dgwGd a-]-gwGd6gw6d ‘deepen’
y6-gw6sgwGs gwGs6gw6s ‘move  to and fro in a fire’
y6-g 6zg Gz
w w
gwGz6gw6z ‘spread (e.g. a mat)’
y6-g6sgGs gGs6g6s ‘go fast’
y6-g6zgGz gGz6g6z ‘be cold’
Penultimate /d/: y-a-dgad(G)g a-dgad6g ‘yield a lot’
y-a-jgaj(G)g a-jg6j6g ‘hinder’
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 69

The emergence of a y6-Ci6Ci(G)Cj pattern in the Jussive of (21a) is due to the

deletion of the antepenult, as shown in (22a). Their penult is geminated to
compensate for the deleted antepenult. The penult in the Perfective is also a
geminate, as usual.
(22) Degemination without devoicing in n6g6d-type totally reduplicated verbs
a. y-a- C 6 C C (G) C
=
z g z g
y-a-z6z(G)g ‘Let throw in a spiral motion’
b. a- C C 6 C C 6 C

z g z g
a-zg6z6g ‘has thrown in a spiral motion’
Because, in both (22a) and (22b), the final radical is an obstruent, the geminate
/zz/ is not the rightmost obstruent. Hence, it degeminates without being devoiced
following (2b). The absence of compensatory devoicing in (22a) and Perfective
devoicing in (22b) confirms hypothesis (2b).
The penult devoicing in the Jussive of totally reduplicated verbs such as y6-
g6kGm ‘let him chip the rims!’, (20a), and its absence in y-a-z6z(G)g ‘let him
throw in a spiral motion!’, (22a), are predicted by my analysis. My hypothesis is
that the penult geminates in both to compensate for the deleted antepenult and
that their devoicing difference originates from the nature of the stem-final
radical. As I have argued so far the geminate /gg/ in y6-g6kGm devoices and
degeminates because it is the final obstruent. On the other hand, the final
obstruent in y-a-z6z(G)g is not the geminate /zz/. In addition, my hypothesis states
that a voiced geminate will degeminate without being devoiced if it is not the
rightmost obstruent of the morpheme. So, /zz/ remains voiced but degemination
applies to it regardless of the final radical. Consequently, the compensatory
geminate simplifies in both, as expected.
McCarthy (1986a: 224, note 7) states that verbs of the type gGm6k6m, (20),
“should not be confused with verbs like gGz6g6z, which have no devoicing
because they are not reconstructed with medial geminates.” However, as argued
in the beginning of this chapter, penult gemination in the Perfective is not a
characteristic of a certain class of verbs. All verbs have Perfective penult
gemination, and there is no verb type gGz6g6z ‘be cold’ which differs from
gGm6k6m ‘chip the rims’ under any relevant criterion of verb classification. Both
conjugate like quadriradicals. In addition, geminate devoicing is insensitive to
verb types in the traditional sense of the term “type”, where Ethiopic triradical
70 SOUND MUTATIONS

verbs are classified into types A, B and C. Rather, devoicing is sensitive to the
position of the geminate in the root/morpheme, and the voicing difference
between the two verbs is derivable from this. In the present analysis, the absence
of devoicing in verbs such as n6g6d ‘has touched’ and gGz6g6z ‘has been cold’
receives a unified account. The presence or absence of reduplication plays no
role in geminate devoicing. Geminates devoice and degeminate when they are the
rightmost obstruent whereas they degeminate without being devoiced when they
are not the rightmost obstruent.
Now let us turn to forms such as a-]-gwGr6kw6r ‘has roared’, from (19), and
a-]-gwGd6gw6d ‘has deepened’, from (21), in which the antepenult does not delete.
Their representations are given below:
(23) Devoicing and degemination when the geminate is the rightmost
obstruent
y-a-]-C 6 C C G C a-]-C G C 6 C C 6 C

[g U] r [g U] r [g U] r [g U] r
y-a-]-gw6rgwGr ‘Let him roar!’ a-]-gwGr6kw6r ‘has roared’
(24) Degemination without devoicing when the geminate is not the
rightmost obstruent
y-a-]-C 6 C C G C a-]-C G C 6 C C 6 C

[g U] d [g U] d [g U] d [g U] d
y-a-]-gw6dgwGd ‘Let him deepen!’ a-]-gwGd6gw6d ‘has deepened’
The coronal antepenult is not deleted in either (23) or (24). Therefore, there is no
compensatory gemination in the Jussive. On the other hand, the penult is a
geminate in the Perfective of both. In addition, the only contrast between these
two verbs is that the final radical is r in the former and d in the latter. Hence,
the penult is the rightmost obstruent only in the former. The voicing difference
in the geminate penult of these verbs is a function of this final radical.
One further aspect needs to be clarified about these forms. It is claimed in
Chapter 1 of this book and in Prunet and Petros (1996) that a verb such as y-a-
]-gw6rgwGr ‘let him roar!’ is formed from a triradical gUr and not a biradical gwr.
According to such analyses, gw is not even an underlying phoneme of Chaha.
When totally reduplicated, the root should yield gUrgUr whose penultimate
radical is U and not g. However, there is no triradical root of the type –kft ‘open’
which can be totally reduplicated, i.e. a hypothetical verb *kGft6kf6t is impossible
in Chaha. It is also clear that the consonant which is affected by geminate
devoicing is g, not the vocoid. Geminate devoicing shows that g is the penulti-
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 71

mate consonant while a triradical analysis of the verb suggests that it is not. This
paradox receives a plausible explanation if we assume, as argued in Prunet and
Petros (1996: 320), that high vocoids in Chaha may be either “strong” or “weak.”
Strong vocoids are those which have a Root node and occupy their own C slot
and the weak ones are those which have neither a Root node nor a C slot. The
vocoids in the above representations are weak, i.e. they do not have their own
Root node, and do not occupy their own C slot. They are floating segments until
they find g to dock onto. In this view, g is the penultimate consonant at the Root
level and the skeleton. However, it should be noted that an underlying /gw/ would
also be compatible with the facts here.8

2.3.4 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled initial radical

The penult of the verbs listed in (25) is g or its palatalized or labialized form,
i.e. the initial and penultimate consonants are the same. They are of the type
C 1 VC 1 C 1 VC 2 . An argument for this is that, as shown in McCarthy
(1986a: 224–5), the initial radicals and the penults undergo some processes as a
single unit. For instance, both g and k are palatalized in the Perfective, e.g.
gy6ky6r ‘has straightened out’. Similarly, they depalatalize in the Jussive, e.g. y6-
g6kGr ‘let him straighten out!’ and labialize in the impersonal, e.g. y6-gw6kwGr-i
‘let one straighten it out!’ together. The uniqueness of the first two consonants
is problematic to the theory of autosegmental phonology because of the form
C1VC1C1VC2. Such a form violates either the  or the left-to-right direction
of autosegmental spreading. However, as argued in McCarthy (1986b), there is
an enormous amount of evidence in support of the correctness of the  and I
am not aware of any clear evidence against it in Chaha. If we want to maintain
the  and the left-to-right direction of autosegmental spreading, an analysis of
the C1VC1C1VC2 pattern is mandatory. Furthermore, there is no verb of the form
C1VC1C1VC2 in Chaha where C1 does not have a secondary articulation, such as
a hypothetical *g6k6r, or a verb whose final radical is a labial, such as a
hypothetical *gy6ky6ö. So, these facts must be explained.

8. It would be desirable to derive the strong vs. weak dichotomy of vocoids from other information
in the grammar. One possible way of attaining this may be to assume that gw6n6r ‘cut the head’ (the
vocoid here is strong) is formed from –grU whereas gwGr6kw6r ‘burrow’ (the vocoid here is weak) is
formed from –gUr. The strong vs. weak nature of U in the two verbs could thus be derived from the
difference in its position. However, I will not deal with this problem in this book.
72 SOUND MUTATIONS

(25) Devoicing and degemination in the C1VC1C1VC2 pattern

Jussive Perfective
a. y6-g6kGr gy6ky6r ‘straighten out, arrange’
y-a-g6kGr a-gy6ky6r ‘be useful, helpful’
y6-g6kGt gy6ky6t ‘accompany on departure’
(repeated from (9))
b. y-a-gw6kwGr a-gw6kw6r ‘roar’
c. y-a-gyagyGz a-gyagy6z ‘flatter’
A solution to the problems related with these verbs has been offered in McCarthy
(1986a: 225) where it is claimed that C1VC1C1VC2 forms “involve copying of the
phonemic melody … but also must be lexically marked to associate the final root
consonant … with the last C slot of the skeleton.” According to this claim, the
first radical associates to the first C1 and the second radical associates to C2 (as
in edge-in association). Then, the first radical is copied onto the medial C1C1.
While I follow the idea that these verbs involve copying I differ in dispensing
with the lexical-linking and unifying these verbs with totally reduplicated ones,
discussed in §2.3.3. Particularly, I claim that these verbs are formed by copying
of all root consonants exactly like y-a-]-gw6rgwGr ‘let him roar!’ (C1VC2C1VC2).
Nevertheless, some C1VC2C1VC2 forms (where C1 is a velar with a secondary
articulation) may undergo deletion of the antepenult, and its compensation yields
C1VC1C1VC2. This is shown in (26).
(26) Deletion of a sonorant antepenult
y-a-C 6 C C G C a-C C 6 C C 6 C
= =
[g U] r [g U] r [g U] r [g U] r
y-a-gw6kwGr ‘Let him roar!’ a-gw6kw6r ‘has roared’
As a result of this deletion, the penult is a geminate in the Jussive, as it is for
templatic reasons in the Perfective. In addition, the final radical is a sonorant,
which makes the geminate penult the rightmost obstruent. Hence, hypothesis (2a)
predicts that it should devoice and degeminate. Indeed, we have devoicing and
degemination as predicted. Again, consider the following representation:
(27) Deletion of an obstruent antepenult
y-a-C a C C G C a-C C a C C 6 C
= =
[g I] z [g I] z [g I] z [g I] z
y-a-gyagyGz ‘Let him flatter!’ a-gyagy6z ‘has flattered’
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 73

Here too, the penult is now a geminate in both the Perfective and Jussive.
Because the final radical is an obstruent the geminate penult is not the rightmost
obstruent and it should degeminate without being devoiced, following hypothesis
(2b). The presence of devoicing in a-gw6kw6r and its absence in a-gyagy6z show
that reduplication plays no role in the devoicing of the penult. Rather, the differ-
ence in voicing between the two correlates with the nature of their final radical.
I now present some supporting arguments for the antepenult-deletion
analysis. The verbs a-gw6kw6r/a-]-gwGr6kw6r ‘has roared’ are in free variation.
The [Gr] is deleted in the former without any modification in meaning, i.e. the
deletion is optional in some verbs. In addition, antepenult deletion may apply
only in a well-defined class of verbs. In Chaha, it applies only to verbs whose
initial radical is a velar with a secondary articulation and whose final radical is
an alveolar. Even though a different class of verbs without secondary articulation
in which the first C2 of C1VC2C1VC2 deletes is found, e.g. gGm6k6m ‘has chipped
the rims’ vs. y6-g6kGm ‘let him chip the rims!’, the deletion occurs only in the
Imperative/Jussive, and with compensatory devoicing, y6-g6mgGm → y6-g6kGm
‘let him chip the rims!’ (see §2.3.2 and Chapter 6). Furthermore, the compensa-
tory devoicing found in y-a-gw6kwGr, the Jussive of (26), parallels the one in y6-
g6kGm, (20a), and receives a straightforward explanation. Finally, some of the
C1VC1C1VC2 verbs have a direct semantic relation with C1VC2C1VC2 nouns, e.g.
ky6ky6r ‘has held  in an armpit’ vs. kyGrkyGr ‘armpit’. It is clear that these two
words have a common root which ends in r and that this root is reduplicated in
both. However, r is deleted only in ky6ky6r.
In the present analysis, gy6ky6r ‘straightened out’ is a totally reduplicated
–gIr, i.e. *gyGr6ky6r with a deleted [Gr]. The root –gIr is also found in unredupli-
cated words, e.g. gy6r-a ‘naive’ and totally reduplicated words, e.g. gyGrgyGr bar6-
m ‘it has blazed/burnt easily’. Even though the relationship between gy6ky6r
‘straightened out’, gy6r-a ‘naive’ and gyGrgyGr bar6-m ‘it has blazed/burnt easily’
may seem remote, all share the concept of “straight”, which I assume is ex-
pressed by –gIr. Finally, deriving gy6ky6r from –gIr has the theoretical advantage
of explaining the apparent  violation in Chaha and some other Ethiopian
Semitic languages (see Appendix 2b for Amharic).
Let us recapitulate the discussion in §2.3. Out of 110 verbs with a doubled
radical investigated, 50 have a final radical sonorant or t. Therefore, their
geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent. Hypothesis (2a) states that such
geminate penult should devoice and degeminate. This is correct 49 times out of
50. In only one Perfective (a-r6b6ö) does the penult degeminate without being
devoiced. On the other hand, 60 of the verbs with a doubled radical have an
obstruent different from t as a final radical. The geminate penult is therefore not
74 SOUND MUTATIONS

the rightmost obstruent. Hypothesis (2b) states that their penult should degem-
inate without being devoiced. This is true 60 time out of 60: there is no verb in
which the penult is devoiced where it is not expected, i.e. hypothesis (2b) is
respected without exception. Accordingly, almost all the verbs discussed in this
section support my hypotheses. Notice the difference in the number of excep-
tions in verbs without doubled radical discussed in §2.2 (which is 20 out of 142)
and those with a doubled radical discussed in this section. This shows that given
a final sonorant consonant, a voiced Ci in …CiVCiCiVC# and CiCiVCi# configu-
ration has a better chance of being devoiced (as there is only one exception in
this class) than a Ci in a …CiCiVCj# configuration and that triple-linking
(Geminate Inalterability) has no role in blocking geminate devoicing.

2.4 Devoicing and degemination in nouns and adjectives

We have seen that an underlying voiced geminate in verbs devoices and degemi-
nates if it is the rightmost obstruent while it degeminates without being devoiced
if it is followed by an underlying obstruent. (Underlying obstruents of Chaha
include ejectives, fricatives and voiced stops.) Now it is worth examining
whether this generalization holds for all lexical items, as we would like it to.
This is difficult to prove because nouns and adjectives do not have a well-
established gemination pattern. However, given the claim that p in all instances
is a devoiced geminate it is predicted not to be found before an obstruent. To my
knowledge, there is no p in nominal and adjectival stems which is followed by
an obstruent other than t. As predicted, p in all instances is followed by a
sonorant or t, e.g. c’Gpwi ‘cautious’, gw6p7 ‘brother’, t’6pa ‘field’, dGp6ya ‘hockey
stick’, c’Gpw6 ‘parings of the 6s6t-root’ (from c’ap6r6-m), k’6pw6r6 ‘newly planted
6s6t’, x6p6ö-ar ‘surrounding’, wGpwat-I6 → wGpwac6 ‘choice’, etc. There are
occasional final p’s as in Š6p ‘lion’, which results from devoicing and degeminat-
ion. Given that a final p is the rightmost obstruent its devoicing and degeminat-
ion also follows from hypothesis (2a).

2.5 Devoicing and degemination in affixes

The malefactive /-öö/ in yG-k6f6t-o-öö-a → yGk6ftopa/yGk6ftoka ‘they open ()

to her detriment’ is the only affix which includes a devoicing consonant. Note
that /-öö/ here is the rightmost consonant of the morpheme (the root in my view
is a morpheme and the two terms are interchangeable in this context) and my
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 75

analysis predicts that it should devoice and degeminate. This prediction is borne
out, as there is no /-öö/ which degeminates without being devoiced, cf.
*yGk6ftoba. See Chapter 9 as to the source of gemination in suffixes and the free
variation of p and k in yGk6ftopa/yGk6ftoka.

2.6 Absence of devoicing and degemination

The participles in (28) provide an exhaustive list of some special geminates,

which neither devoice nor degeminate. Only voiced obstruents are discussed
here. See Banksira (1999) for a detailed discussion of such words.9
(28) Special geminates10
a. /ö/ g6bb ‘calmed’
l6bb ‘lukewarm’
t’6bb ‘dripped’
k’6bb ‘grabbed’
w6bb ‘knot loosely’
w6bb ‘tempted’
b. /z/ bwGŠŠ ‘stand still with fear’
6zz ‘be sickly’
fizz ‘stared’
gyGzz/gGŠŠ ‘be motionless’
k’yGzz/k’GŠŠ ‘underdeveloped’
mwGŠŠ/mwGŠGŠ ‘drown out’
c. /g/ bw6gg ‘illuminated’
dGgg ‘acted steadily’
mwGgg ‘bent’
z6gg ‘enlarge’
A possible solution for the absence of devoicing and degemination here is to
assume, following See Banksira (1999), that these geminates are derived by total

9. The participles cannot be used as modifiers. Rather, combined with the auxiliary bar6-m ‘become’
(lit. ‘said’) or a-m6n6-m ‘made’, they are used as verbs. This results in composite verbs (intransitive
with bar6-m and transitive with a-m6n6-m). See also Chapter 7 and Leslau (1992: 131).
10. Notice that palatalization in gyGzz/gGŠŠ and k’yGzz/k’GŠŠ targets either the initial velar or the final
alveolar but not both at the same time. This special case of palatalization suggests that the palatal
element is an autosegment targeting the word and is not underlyingly associated with one of the
radicals, as discussed in §2.3.3.
76 SOUND MUTATIONS

reduplication with a deleted medial CV, as in /g6ög6ö/ → /g6öö/ → [g6bb].

Devoicing and degemination apply before [g6bb] is derived.

2.7 Geminate devoicing and underspecification

2.7.1 Absence of laryngeal specification in sonorants

The hypotheses expressed in (2), i.e. a geminate devoices and degeminates when
it is the rightmost obstruent, and degeminates otherwise (without being devoiced
when it is followed by an obstruent other than t) have been justified at length.
The question to be addressed now is: why does whether a geminate is the
rightmost obstruent or not play a decisive role in the devoicing of a geminate?
I suggest that this is best viewed as a consequence of underspecification. As it
is well known, [voice] is an unmarked feature for sonorants. For instance, all
sonorants including ö in Chaha are voiced, i.e. [+] implies [voice]. Further-
more, it is widely assumed that [voice] in sonorants is inactive or unspecified in
many languages (e.g. Kiparsky 1985, Itô and Mester 1986, Lombardi 1991, 1995,
Calabrese 1995, Itô, Mester and Padgett 1995, Steriade 1995 and Rubach 1996).
Following this line of reasoning, let us assume that [voice] in sonorants is
unspecified in Chaha. Accordingly, the respective final sonorant radicals /r/, /A/
and /m/ of the following verbs have no laryngeal specification.
(29) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. C 6 C C 6 C c. C G C 6 C C 6 C

Root node • • • • • • • • • •

Laryngeal node • • • • •

[voice] [voice][voice] [voice] [voice]

m6k6r g6pa gGr6t6m
‘has suppurated’ ‘has entered’ ‘has broken in two’
In all these examples, the [voice] of the geminate penult is not followed by a
Laryngeal node. Rather, its Laryngeal node is the final one. I hypothesize that it
is this final doubly linked [voice] that the grammar of Chaha excludes.
In contrast with sonorants, [voice] is marked in obstruents and I assume that
they are specified for it, i.e. voiced obstruents are [voice], ejectives are
[constricted glottis] and voiceless fricatives (including x) are [spread glottis].
Accordingly, the respective final obstruents d, k’ and f of the verbs in (30a–c)
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 77

have Laryngeal nodes. The [voice] of the geminate penult is therefore followed
by a laryngeal specification. Hence, it is nonfinal, as shown in (30).
(30) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. C 6 C C 6 C c. C G C 6 C C 6 C

Root node • • • • • • • • • •

Laryngeal node • • • • • • • •

[voice][voice] [voice] [voice] [voice] [voice]

[] []
n6g6d z6b6k gGr6d6f
‘has touched’ ‘has daubed’ ‘has ground roughly’
My hypothesis is that a doubly linked nonfinal [voice] is licensed. So, degemin-
ation applies without affecting the licensed feature [voice]. This accounts for the
absence of devoicing in the verbs exemplified in (30). On the other hand, the
final doubly linked [voice] in (29) is unlicensed. Therefore, the Laryngeal node
dominating [voice] delinks from the voiced obstruent g in m6k6r (29a), b in g6pa
(29b), and d in gGr6t6m, (29c). (See §5.3.1 for a formal representation of
devoicing and degemination.) Based on these considerations, I assume that Chaha
does not allow a final doubly linked [voice], i.e. the constraint given in (31)
holds at the level of roots/morphemes. (Nothing in my analysis hinges on
whether the Root node should directly link to syllabic constituents or skeletal
slots but I chose the latter for ease of exposition.)
(31) No Doubly Linked Final [voice]
Skeleton *C C

Root node •

Laryngeal node •#

[voice]
The g in m6k6r, (29a), is the rightmost obstruent of the stem and it is a geminate.
It devoices not to violate the constraint given in (31). The g in n6g6d, (30a), is
a geminate too but it is not the rightmost obstruent. It does not devoice since it
does not violate (31). In other words, the [voice] of the geminate penult in (30)
is licensed by a following laryngeal specification. The emergence of two classes
of verbs, with and without penultimate voicing alternation, is thus a result of a
constraint on a final doubly linked [voice], (31). In this account, the hypotheses
in (2) follow from (31) and from the assumption that sonorants (and /t/) lack
78 SOUND MUTATIONS

laryngeal specification. Notice that the constraint in (31) can be satisfied either
by delinking the feature [voice] (i.e. devoicing) or deleting one of the C slots
(i.e. degemination) so it does not require that both devoicing and degemination
apply. However, devoicing alone as in the hypothetical m6kk6r or degemination
alone as in hypothetical m6g6r is insufficient showing that rule ordering in which
devoicing applies before degemination is required. In addition, given that the
input for devoicing (i.e. the geminate) is always degeminated the rule of
devoicing is opaque.
Penultimate geminate devoicing in Chaha can be seen as a subset of a more
general process of final devoicing as in Russian (Kenstowicz and Kisseberth
1979), German (Lombardi 1991), and Polish (Rubach 1996), restricted to a
geminate voiced obstruent. Final devoicing restricted only to a geminate /bb/ (→
[pp] or [p]) is reported to occur optionally also in Moroccan Colloquial Arabic
(see Heath 1987: 16). See Ohala and Riordan 1979 and the references therein as
to the tendency of geminates to devoice. In (29), the doubly linked [voice] is
final, which according to (31) is illicit. This explains why it devoices. But in
(30), the final radical of each verb is an obstruent, which has a laryngeal
specification. So, the doubly linked [voice] of the penult is nonfinal and it is
licit. This explains why it remains voiced.
The assumption that sonorants are unspecified for [voice] also provides a
straightforward account of why geminate sonorant penults degeminate without being
devoiced irrespective of whether the final radical is a sonorant or an obstruent.
(32) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. C 6 C C 6 C

Root node • • • • • •

Laryngeal node • • •

[constricted] [voice] [voice]

k’6n6m ‘has insulted’ g6n6z ‘has aged’
The geminate penult in (32) is a sonorant, unspecified for [voice]. Irrespective of
whether the penult is followed by a laryngeal specification, as in (32b), or not,
as in (32a), a violation of (31) cannot arise since there is no doubly linked
[voice]. Similarly, there is no [voice] to delink from the geminate sonorant
penult, which may be the reason why geminate sonorants degeminate without
being devoiced.
A geminate /öö/ (or [b]) is an obstruent with a specification [−, voice]
(see §1.3.1). Its specification [voice] is subject to the constraint No Doubly
Linked Final [voice], (31). This results in devoicing of /öö/ unless it is followed
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 79

by another obstruent. Given that only [−] segments devoice /öö/ should
become obstruent before devoicing and degemination applies to it.

2.7.2 The patterning of /ö/ and /t/ with sonorants

Chaha /ö/ and /t/ pattern with sonorants in many respects (see Chapters 1 and 3),
but here I will discuss this only in relation to geminate devoicing. As we have
seen so far and summarized in (33), geminate penults degeminate but do not
devoice when the last radical is an obstruent other than /t/, (33a). But they
devoice and degeminate when the last radical is /t/ or a sonorant, (33b). It is
assumed above that sonorants are laryngeally unspecified.
(33) Final obstruents vs. /t/ and sonorants with respect to geminate devoicing
Jussive Perfective
a. y6-t’Gös t’6b6s < /t’6öö6s/ ‘roast’
y6-ndGf n6d6f < /r6dd6f/ ‘sting’
y-a-k’öaöz a-k’öab6z < /a-k’öaöö6z/ ‘deny the truth’
y-a-xGöd a-x6b6d < /a-x6öö6d/ ‘defer’
y-6dGg ad6g < /A6dd6g/ ‘make fall’
y6-t-zraö6t’ t6-zrab6t’ < /t6-zraöö6t’/ ‘crave’
y6-zGök’ z6b6k’ < /z6öö6k’/ ‘daub’
b. y6-zaöt zap6t < /zA6öö6t/ ‘lose one’s way’
y6-z6sGm zGm6s6m < /zm6zz6m/ ‘be wet’
y6-sdGö s6t6ö < /s6dd6ö/ ‘curse’
y6-söGr s6p6r < /s6öö6r/ ‘break’
y6-mba n6pa < /r6öö6A/ ‘split’
y6-t’u t’6pw6 < /t’6öö6U/ ‘suck’
y6-d6g y
d6ky6 < /d6gg6I/ ‘brew’
My proposal is that the final /ö/ patterns with sonorants because it is one (see
§1.3.1 for justification). On the other hand, the fact that geminates devoice in
verbs whose final radical is t as in zap6t, from (33b), forced me to distinguish /t/
from the class of Chaha obstruents and categorize it instead with sonorants even
though it does not form a natural class with sonorants in many, if not all,
phonological theories. This may seem to be problematic to my analysis but in
fact it follows from the assumption that /t/ have no laryngeal specifications.
Many aspects of the distribution of /t/ require an explanation. For instance,
note that [t] in (33) is the only plain voiceless stop to appear as a final radical.
It is also true that Chaha /t/ is the only underlying plain (nonejective) voiceless
stop, as [k] derives from /g/ (or /x/, see next chapter) and [b, p] derive from /ö/.
80 SOUND MUTATIONS

In fact, as argued in §1.2, the plain voiceless stops /p, k/ are not even underlying
Chaha phonemes as evidenced by their restricted distribution. Accordingly,
[p, t, k] have no laryngeal specification. In fact, no phoneme of Chaha has
[−voice], as fricatives in my analysis are [spread glottis]. The claim that /t/ is
unspecified for [voice] (i.e. that it is not [−voice]) may explain why it patterns
with sonorants in not licensing a preceding doubly linked [voice] even though it
does not form a natural class with sonorants and does not receive their redundant
value [voice].
In my view, [b] (i.e. initial, geminate or postnasal) is an obstruent with
[voice], as is the penult in (34a), whereas [ö] is a sonorant unspecified for
[voice], as is the final radical in (34a). So the [voice] of [bb] in (34a) is the final
laryngeal specification, which according to (31) is illicit. It therefore delinks,
resulting in devoicing to [p].
(34) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. C 6 C C 6 C

Root node • • • • • •

Laryngeal node • • • • •

[constricted] [voice] [] [voice] [voice]

k’6p6ö ‘has shaved’ f6z6z ‘has been better’
But the final radical z in (34b) is a laryngeally specified obstruent. Here, the
[voice] of the penult zz is licensed by the [voice] of the final z, so it does not
violate (31). It, accordingly, does not delink, which explains the absence of
devoicing. Degemination applies in both cases because it does not take the
nature of a final radical into account. Again, the geminate in verbs such as
z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’ and the one in f6z6z degeminate without being devoiced for
the same reason that the final radical is an obstruent with a laryngeal
specification. Consequently, neither the feature-changing vs. feature-filling
distinction nor the triply linked configuration is required. In my view, bb is a
voiced stop and its devoicing is the delinking of [voice]. In this regard, I am
not aware of any phonologically relevant distinction between bb and any other
voiced geminate.
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 81

2.8 Conclusion

The geminate penults of a total of 252 verbs were investigated in this chapter
(disregarding the special final geminates without devoicing and degemination,
discussed in §2.6). Based on these verbs two hypotheses were formulated in (2).
These are repeated in (35) with the italicized amendment in (35a).
(35) Hypotheses about geminate devoicing and degemination in Chaha:
(final version)
a. Geminates devoice and degeminate if they are the rightmost
laryngeally specified obstruent of a morpheme.
b. Otherwise, they degeminate (without being devoiced).
150 of the 252 verbs end with a sonorant or t. Therefore, the geminate penult
is the rightmost laryngeally specified obstruent, which according to hypothesis
(35a) should devoice and degeminate. 122 out of the 150 conform to (35a). All
the exceptions to (35a) (22 verbs) are selected from the relevant sections and
reproduced in (36). (Penult devoicing is expected in all Perfective verbs and
only in the underlined Jussive forms for compensatory reasons.)
(36) Exhaustive list of exceptions to geminate devoicing
Jussive Perfective
Penultimate /ö/: y-a-mbGö a-r6b6ö ‘read’ (< )
y6-d-dGraö6r t6-drab6r‘bolt, grope’
y6-g6bGr gy6b6r ‘pay tribute, submit’
y6-kö6r k6b6r ‘be respectable’ (< )
y6-tobGt tob6t ‘become a Muslim’ (< Arabic)
Penultimate /g/: y-a-d6gGr a-j6g6r ‘trouble ()’
y6-fga f6ga ‘blow’
y6-]-g6gGö G]-gGö6k6ö ‘thunder’ (exception only in Jussive)
y6-sgy s6gy6 ‘call a witness’
y6-sg6r s6g6r ‘amble’
y6-t’6gGr c’6g6r ‘be cruel, refuse’
Penultimate /d/: y-a-sraj a-sraj6 ‘eke out, stretch out’
y6-f6nda fGn6da ‘burst’ (< )
y6-gwda gw6da ‘hurt’
y6-k’ ada k’wada
w
‘rave, talk nonsense’
y6-nda n6da ‘help, drive’
y6-xda x6da ‘abjure, betray’
y6-xdGm x6d6m ‘look after’
82 SOUND MUTATIONS

Penultimate /z/: y6-k’w(G)Š k’w6Š6 ‘have dysentery’

y6-m6zGr mez6r ‘count’
y6-nz6ö n6z6ö ‘be flexible’
y6-wza w6za ‘shine’
The list shows that a labial, dorsal or coronal penult can be an exception to
devoicing (but see next for their proportion) so exceptions cannot be attributed
to the nature of the consonant expected to devoice. Similarly, the initial as well
as the final radicals of the verbs are varied in nature. Sonorants and obstruents
from different place of articulation are found as an initial radical. In addition,
all sonorants are found as a final radical. So the exceptions are not due to the
surrounding consonants. Furthermore, the relative number of loans in the list (4
out of 22) is not exceptionally high to attribute the exceptions to borrowing. It
seems that there is no synchronic rationale which can explain these exceptions.
Verbs with optional devoicing are reproduced in (37). In these six verbs
the voiced and the voiceless alternates are in free variation.
(37) Exhaustive list of verbs with optional devoicing
Penultimate /g/: y6-s6kGr/y6-s6gGr w6k6r/w6g6r ‘change’
Penultimate /d/: n6t6r/n6d6r ‘pierce’
f6c6/f6j6 ‘engage, get rid of tapeworm’
Penultimate /z/: as6r/az6r ‘carry on one’s back, mount’
aw6/aŠ6 ‘see’
t6-k’raw6/t6-k’raŠ6 ‘look here and there’
Table 2.1 compares the results of the verbs that fall under hypothesis (35a).
Table 2.1. Calculation of expected devoicing and exceptions
penult number of corroborative neutral (i.e. exception (i.e. percentage of
verbs (i.e. devoicing) free variation) no devoicing) exception
/ö/ 053 048 0 05 10.42%
/g/ 044 037 1 06 13.64%
/d/ 033 024 2 07 21.27%
/z/ 020 013 3 04 20.00%
Total 150 122 6 22 14.67%

The total number of exceptions to geminate devoicing (i.e. 22) is 14.67% of the
150 verbs in which the geminate is predicted to devoice. These exceptions
militate against hypothesis (35a). Before this book, borrowing has been consid-
ered to be the main reason for these exceptions. But I have discussed some
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 83

arguments showing that this view is erroneous. Rather, I have shown that verbs
with a doubled radical have practically no exceptions (see §2.3). In addition, the
percentage of exceptions is higher in the coronal series presumably because this
is the only series with voicing contrast and it tends to maintain the contrast. The
six verbs with optional devoicing are neutral with respect to hypothesis (35a).
The rest of the verbs (i.e. 81.33% of 150) devoice and degeminate and conse-
quently support hypothesis (35a).
The remaining verbs (a total of 103) fall under hypothesis (35b) because
their penult is not the rightmost obstruent with a laryngeal specification, i.e. it
is followed by a final radical with a laryngeal specification. The geminate
penult of all these verbs but one degeminates without being devoiced. These
were considered exceptions till now. According to the present analysis, these
verbs are not expected to devoice their penult. The hypothesis is corroborated
by more than 99 % of them since there is only one verb (mes6x) with a
devoiced penult when the final radical is an obstruent different from t.
The two hypotheses are also supported by the compensatory devoicing
which applies in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals, such as y6-d6IöGr → y6-
d6ööGr → y6-d6pGr, discussed in §2.2.7, and reduplicated biradicals, such as in
y6-g6mgGm → y6-g6ggGm → y6-g6kGm, discussed in §2.3.3 and §2.3.4. The
deletion of the antepenult in these verbs is compensated by devoicing. Such
compensatory devoicing occurs only if the penult is the rightmost obstruent with
a laryngeal specification. For instance, in y6-t’6IöGk’ → y6-t’6ööGk’ → y6-t’6bGk’
and y6-z6fzGf → y6-z6zzGf → y6-z6zGf the penult is not the rightmost obstruent
with a laryngeal specification and accordingly it degeminates without being
devoiced. The absence of compensatory devoicing when the final radical is
laryngeally specified corroborates hypothesis (35b). Finally, the antepenult-
deletion analysis was also used to explain some apparent  violations.
In the appendices to follow, I show that my analysis also explains why the
so-called type B verbs of Amharic (including C1VC1C1VC2) always have a
geminated penult. It also follows from my analysis that the  violation in
Amharic verbs of the type C16C1C16C2 (k’6k’k’6l) and C1aC1C16C2 (gagg6r) is
only apparent.

Appendix 2a
On the second-radical vocoid in Amharic

Amharic quadriradical verbs have no gemination in the Jussive, e.g. yG-g6löGt’

‘let him turn  upside-down!’ (In what follows I will only give the stem, i.e.
84 SOUND MUTATIONS

the Imperative). Amharic type A and C verbs have no gemination either, e.g.
type A sGö6r ‘break !’ and type C bark ‘bless!’ (In all these cases, Chaha
has no devoicing.) So gemination in the Imperative is the characteristic of the
so-called type B verbs alone, as it characterizes neither triradicals (other than
type B) nor quadriradicals. This, in my view, needs an explanation because as
shown for Gurage in Petros (1993a), Prunet (1996b) and Chamora (1997), there
are only two patterns (short/triconsonantal and long/quadriconsonantal) so there
should not be a third pattern, called type B. Of course, it is desirable that this
generalization holds in Ethiopic. With this in mind, and in line with the analysis
given for Chaha I-second quadriradicals in §2.2.7, let us assume that, with the
exception of C1VC1C1VC2 (to be discussed in Appendix 2B) and some denomi-
nals, all Amharic type B verbs are vocoid-second quadriradicals. See also
Beyene (1973: 232–5) for analyzing some Amharic type B verbs as y-second
quadriradicals and Voigt (1990) for a compatible analysis of Geäez.
Accordingly, the second radical in Amharic c’6mmGr ‘add!’ is not /m/ but /I/, as
in /t’6ImGr/, and it parallels g6löGt’. We have seen in §2.2.7 that devoicing in the
Imperative stem of Chaha I-second quadriradicals is triggered by a delinked I,
as in /k’6IöGr/ → /k’6bbGr/ → [k’6pGr] ‘help’, with depalatalization in the
Imperative. Similarly, gemination in the Imperative of Amharic I-second
quadriradicals is triggered by a delinked vocoid as in /t’6ImGr/ → [c’6mmGr]
‘add!’ So, both devoicing in Chaha and gemination in Amharic are compensatory.
The second radical is mostly I, but it can also be U, and I assume that
gemination in the Imperative of Amharic U-second quadriradicals is also
triggered by a delinked U as in /k’6Ut’Gö/ → [k’ot’t’Gö] ‘save!’ and /t’6Uk’Gm/ →
[t’6k’k’wGm] ‘nominate!’ But it should be noted that not all surface triradicals
containing a labialized segment are U-second quadriradicals. There are verbs
such as k’wGt’6r ‘count!’ and t’Gk’w6r ‘be dark!’ which conjugate like triradicals.
In these cases, the labializing U is not an independent radical in any respect (see
§2.2.7 for such weak glides in Chaha).
As it is the case for Chaha, the I-second quadriradicals (e.g. c’6mmGr) of
Amharic conjugate like regular quadriradicals (e.g. g6löGt’). For instance, both
have a geminated penult in the Imperfective, e.g. yG-g6l6bbGt’-all (not *yG-g6l6öt’-
all) ‘he turns  upside-down’ and yG-c’6mmGr-all (not *yG-c’6mr-all) ‘he adds’.
In addition, the initial radical in both is followed by a vowel in the Imperative,
e.g. g6löGt’ ‘turn  upside-down!’ and c’6mmGr ‘add!’ Note that triradicals have
an epenthetic vowel after the initial radical in the Imperative, e.g. sGö6r (not
*s6öGr) ‘break!’ As depicted below, the delinking of I from its slot triggers
compensatory gemination of the penult. This explains why I-second quadriradi-
cals differ from regular quadriradicals and triradicals in having a geminated
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 85

penult in the Imperative. (Note that the penult is not geminated in the Imperative
of the regular quadriradical g6löGt’ or triradicals other than type B.)
(1) Compensatory gemination in the Imperative of I-second quadriradicals
a. C 6 C C G C b. C 6 C 6 C C 6 C
= =
[t’ I] m r [t’ I] m r
c’6mmGr ‘Add!’ c’6mm6r ‘has added’
In Chaha, I deletes if it is a nonfinal coda in a stem, as in /k’6IöGr/ → [k’6pGr],
thereby triggering compensatory devoicing as well as depalatalization, cf. (11a)
in §2.2.7. But Amharic differs from Chaha in that I can dock on its host even
when it is a nonfinal coda in a stem, as in (1a). Chaha also differs from
Amharic concerning compensatory lengthening. In Chaha, this occurs only when
I deletes, i.e. when I cannot dock on a neighboring segment whereas in Amharic
I does not need to delete. It can dock on a neighboring segment, as in (1a), and
lengthening can still apply. This shows that a palatalizing I in Chaha is linked
with both the C slot of its host and its own whereas a palatalizing I in Amharic
is linked only with the C slot of its host. In this account, [c] of Chaha is as in
(2a) while that of Amharic is as in (2b). ([−back] also represents the other
terminal feature [high] of /I/.)
(2) a. [c] in Chaha b. [c] in Amharic
C C C C
=
Root Root Root Root

Place Place Place Place

Coronal Dorsal Coronal Dorsal

=
[–back] [–back]
The Root node of I is delinked but neither the Root node nor its C slot is deleted
in the Amharic Imperative c’6mmGr, which explains why we have compensatory
gemination and palatalization at the same time. But Chaha has a compensatory
gemination only when there is no palatalization, as in k’6pGr, i.e. when the Root
node of I is deleted. That an original C slot of a vocoid is vacant in Amharic is
also supported by the fact that it can be filled by the default t, explaining the
t-epenthesis in m6-fj6t ‘to consume’, from –fdI. On the other hand, t-epenthesis
is impossible in Chaha because the original C slot of I is not vacant when there
86 SOUND MUTATIONS

is palatalization, as shown in (2a). Accordingly, we obtain w6-fj (not *w6-fGjt) ‘to

engage’, from –fdI. This analysis is also supported by the absorbing nature of
Chaha palatalization, e.g. /kGft-I/ → [kGfc] (i.e. [c] occupies its own slot and that
of /I/), and the optional nature of absorption in Amharic palatalization, e.g.
/kGf6t-I/ → [kGf6c(i)] ‘open ( )!’ (i.e. [c] does not necessarily occupy the
slot of /I/).
A triradical analysis of type B assumes that the vowel following the first
radical is e, cf. Leslau (1957: 488) and Lowenstamm (1986: 171–3), as in /met’6r/
‘has separated’. I have developed this hypothesis further and assumed that e is
in fact a fusion of 6I (occupying a VC slot) as in /m6I6t’t’6r/. Note that
/m6I6t’t’6r/ is a quadriradical with the regular 6-6-6 vowel sequence of aquadri-
radical (cf. g6l6bb6t’ ‘has turned  upside-down’). In my analysis, penult
gemination in the Perfective of type B is not compensatory because such
gemination characterizes the Perfective in all verb types. Similarly, the penult in
the Imperfectives of all quadriradicals is a geminate, which explains why type B
verbs have a geminate in this aspect. On the other hand, gemination in the
Imperative characterizes only type B and this is due to the abandoned C slot of
I, i.e. c’ in c’6mmGr is the combination of t’ and I, as shown in (1b). The I
delinks from its C slot and docks on the initial radical if the latter can support
the former, i.e. if it is palatalizable (see the following paragraphs). Consequently,
the penult gets a vacant C to which it propagates. This explains why all I-second
quadriradicals have a geminated penult in the Imperative. It also unifies type B
with quadriradicals, hence eliminates the third class (type B) from the analysis
of verbs in Ethiopic. Furthermore, we will see in Appendix 2B that this analysis
is supported by C1C1C2 verbs such as k’6k’k’6l and it explains the apparent 
violation in them.
It should be mentioned that, in Amharic, all I-second quadriradicals belong
to type B but not all type B verbs are I-second quadriradicals. For instance, there
are verbs in Amharic where the initial radical is a dental obstruent which is not
palatalized. Yet these verbs belong to type B, e.g. d6gg6f ‘has supported’ and
z6mm6r ‘has chanted’. See Leslau (1957: 487) for a list of such verbs and an
explanation different from mine. My proposal is that an initial s’ of an I-second
quadriradical does not palatalize because there is no palatalized ejective fricative
w ’ in Amharic. In addition, I claim that the initial voiced coronals d and z of a
I-second quadriradical do not palatalize. If correct, this analysis (in conjunction
with the claim that labialized and palatalized consonants are biphonemic) predicts
that no type B verb should begin with j or Š and that a verb which begins with
s’, d or z can belong to type B. From Aklilu’s (1987) Amharic-English Dictio-
nary, the only free verbs (without a prefix) beginning with j or Š (mostly they
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 87

are in free variation) are Š6ll6t’ ‘has hit by a stick’, j6mm6r ‘has started’, j6bb6d
‘has struck with a stick’, j6bbon ‘has muffled’, and jaj6 ‘has become senile’.
Except for these five verbs the prediction that no type B should begin with j or
Š holds in its generality. But I have no clear reason why initial voiced coronals
d and z of an I-second quadriradical do not palatalize to yield forms such as
*j6gg6f (vs. d6gg6f) and *Š6mm6r (vs. z6mm6r). On the other hand, the geminated
penultimate radicals of yG-s’6llGy-all ‘he prays’, yG-d6ggGf-all ‘he supports’ and yG-
z6mmGr-all ‘he chants’ show that verbs beginning respectively with s’, d and z
can belong to type B.
An initial t of an I-second quadriradical may palatalize, as in yG-c6ggGr ‘let
one be in trouble’, and may remain without palatalization, as in yG-t6llGm ‘let him
plan’. However, verbs beginning with t or c are denominals, as yG-c6ggGr derives
from cGggGr ‘trouble’ and yG-t6llGm derives from tGlm ‘plan’. This makes it difficult
to decide whether t in a regular I-second quadriradical will palatalize or not.
I propose that initial voiceless coronals t’ and s in I-second quadriradicals
palatalize as in (1) unless the penult is a vocoid, as in t’6yy6k’ ‘has asked’ and
s6ww6r ‘has obscured’. If correct, this analysis predicts that a verb which begins
with t’ or s and whose penult is not a vocoid cannot belong to type B. The
prediction holds in all regular verbs but not in the following five denominal
verbs: yG-t’6bbGk’-all ‘he waits’ (from t’Gbb6k’a ‘guarding’), yG-t’6ggGn-all ‘he
mends’ (from t’Ggg6na ‘mending’), yG-t’6rrGz-all ‘he binds’ (from t’Graz ‘binding’
or t’6rz ‘edge’), yG-s6rrGg-all ‘he weds’ (from s6rg ‘wedding’) and yG-s6rrGz-all
‘he cancels’ (from s6r6z ‘cancellation’). It also follows from my analysis that a
surface triradical beginning with c’ or w (followed by 6) is an underlying I-second
quadriradical (i.e. type B) and should always have a geminated penult. This
prediction is also borne out except for the absence of gemination in the three
denominal verbs yG-c’6nk’-all ‘it distresses’ (from c’Gnk’ ‘distress’), yG-c’6mk’-all
‘he squeezes’ (from c’Gmmak’i ‘juice’), yG-w6rf-all ‘he breaks a piece off’ (from
wGrrafi ‘a broken off piece’ or w6rafa ‘the remainder after a piece is broken off’).
An initial labial, velar or sonorant of an Amharic I-second quadriradical
does not palatalize, e.g. g6bbGr ‘submit!’ and g6bb6r ‘has submitted’. In these
examples, the consonants g and b seem to be adjacent radicals. But my claim is
that g and b are separated by I and that g is geminated in (3a) to compensate for
the delinked I, i.e. /g6IöGr/ → [g6bbGr]. But the I in (3) is silent because it is not
preceded by a palatalizable (plain voiceless coronal obstruent) consonant.
88 SOUND MUTATIONS

(3) Visible compensatory gemination triggered by an invisible delinking

a. C 6 C C G C b. C 6 C 6 C C 6 C
= =
g I ö r g I ö r
g6bbGr ‘Submit!’ g6bb6r ‘has submitted’
In languages where velars are palatalizable, such as Chaha, it is evident that such
words include I, cf. gy6b6r ‘has submitted’. In other languages, such as Soddo,
where I is allowed to surface independently we find the vowel i, cf. gibb6r. But
Amharic allows neither palatalization of velars nor vocalization of I, obliterating
all traces of a the second radical I. This creates an apparent similarity (in the
number of radicals) between quadriradical verbs such as g6bb6r (formed from
–gIör) and triradical ones such as k’6bb6r ‘has buried’ (formed from –k’ör). See
Demoz (1964) and Amberber (1997) on the meaning of Amharic basic and
derived stems.
I have proposed that some Amharic type B verbs are vocoid-second
quadriradicals with a delinked antepenult, e.g. t’6ImGr → c’6mmGr and k’6Ut’Gö
→ k’ot’t’Gö, and that some are denominatives, e.g. t’Graz → t’6rr6z. I have also
argued that a second-radical I in Amharic palatalizes only voiceless coronals. The
third source of Amharic type B are reduplicated biradicals with a delinked
antepenult, e.g. /k’6lk’6l/ → [k’6k’k’Gl] ‘cook !’, to be discussed next in
Appendix 2b.

Appendix 2b
On Amharic C1C1C2 verbs

We have seen in §2.3.3 that in Chaha some totally reduplicated biradicals delete
their antepenultimate consonant, e.g. /y-a-gw6rgwGr/ → [y-a-gw6kwGr] ‘let him
roar!’ The deletion of /r/ gives rise to two classic problems. The first is that the
penult of some of these verbs is always geminated. This has created the other
subset of the so-called type B verbs whose raison d’être is still a matter of
controversy. The second is the C1C1C2 pattern itself. Due to the existence of
such forms, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have been argued to violate the 
(Broselow 1984: 27–8). But given my antepenult-deletion analysis proposed for
Chaha, both problems receive a straightforward account. The deleted antepenult is
responsible for the rise of both compensatory lengthening and the apparent violation
in the C1C1C2 pattern. In this section I will account for the Amharic C1C1C2 forms
and briefly discuss their differences and similarities with the Chaha forms.
 GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION 89

The C1C1C2 pattern of Amharic differs from that of Chaha in that its C1
does not need to have a secondary articulation, e.g. k’6k’k’6l ‘has cooked  by
boiling’. In my analysis, k’6k’k’6l is a reduplicated biradical, as shown in (1).
See also Dillmann (1907: 102) for deriving Geäez sassala ‘to withdraw’ from
salsala and Leslau (1995: 454) for deriving Amharic k’6k’k’6l from t6n-
k’6l6k’k’6l.
(1) Compensatory lengthening in the Amharic Jussive of C16C1C1VC2 verbs
a. C 6 C C G C b. C 6 C 6 C C 6 C
= =
k’ l k’ l k’ l k’ l
k’6k’k’Gl ‘Cook ()!’ k’6k’k’6l ‘has cooked ()’
These representations would be plausible if it could be proved that the initial and
the medial k’ are not adjacent in . The strongest argument in support of this
is that there is no Imperative of the form C1GC16C2, i.e. such verbs have either
medial gemination in all verbal aspects as in (1) above or their two C1’s are
separated by the vowel a as in (2) below, giving rise to type C. See Leslau
(1995: 454) for the observation that all Amharic C1C1C2 verbs are either of type
B or C. See Polotsky (1951: 16) and Lowenstamm (1991a: 951) for arguments
that a in Ethiopian Semitic languages is phonologically long and that 6 is its
short counterpart. An analysis that unifies the lengthening in (1) and (2) has to
eliminate the V slot vs. C slot distinction, as proposed in Lowenstamm and Kaye
(1986) and Hayes (1989).
(2) Compensatory lengthening in the Amharic Jussive of C1aC1VC2 verbs
a. 6 b. 6

C V C C G C C V C 6 C C 6 C
= =
g r g r g r g r
gagGr ‘Bake ()!’ gagg6r ‘has baked ()’
In both (1) and (2), C1C1C2 is a reduplicated biradical with a deleted antepenult.
This explains why C1 in the Imperative (in contrast to that of type A sGö6r ‘break
!’) cannot be followed by [G], i.e. it is followed by the 6 of quadriradicals, as
in (1), to be compared with g6löGt’, or its lengthened form, as in (2).
The absence of type A C1C1C2 verbs is a systematic gap which remains
unexplained if we analyze k’6k’k’Gl and gaggGr as triradicals. But if we analyze
them as reduplicated biradicals the gap is explained because the verbs have four
90 SOUND MUTATIONS

underlying consonants, with the antepenult deleted by compensatory lengthening.

Notice that this change parallels the penult devoicing of Chaha (see §2.3.2).
Because of the deleted antepenult, the stem-initial and the stem-medial radicals
k’ in k’6k’k’Gl and g in gagGr are not adjacent, i.e. they do not violate the . In
this section, I accounted for the rise of the C1C1C2 pattern in Amharic as well as
for the compensatory lengthening found in the pattern.
 C 3

On the Distribution of [x] and [k]

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I show that x and k are not contrastive in Chaha and I account
for their distribution. In §3.2, I review previous claims on x and k in order to
show that these claims do not adequately characterize these sounds. I show that
[x] and [k] are in complementary distribution and that their distribution is
determined by a root structure constraint, and not by their position in the
syllable. I propose that /x/ is the underlying form whereas [k] is the derived form
and that [k] obtains when /x/ is followed by another /x/ or by a fricative, a class
of segments characterized by [+, −]. I also show that the radical /A/,
representing an original laryngeal or pharyngeal, functions like a fricative in
triggering the strengthening of a preceding /x/. Based on this, I motivate a
constraint which prohibits a precontinuant [x] in a root. In §3.3, I present verbs
containing a nonfinal /x/ and show how my proposal accounts for its realization.
I examine apparent problematic cases in §3.4 and forms with a final singleton /x/
in §3.5. In 3.6, I introduce forms containing multiple /x/’s and argue that their
realization follows from the independently motivated constraint prohibiting a
precontinuant [x]. In §3.7 I treat the realization of a geminated /x/. In §3.8, I
discuss some implications of strengthening for underspecification. Throughout
this chapter, I provide exhaustive lists of verbs and representative examples of
nouns and adjectives containing /x/. (See Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999 for a
treatment of these problems in an Optimality Theoretic approach.)

3.2 x and k are not contrastive

The voiceless velar spirant x and the voiceless velar stop k are not contrastive in
Chaha. This claim was also made in Leslau (1978: 177, reproduced in Leslau
1992 a volume to which I will refer from now on) where he states that: “the
92 SOUND MUTATIONS

spirant consonants are not phonemic.” In his view, [x] is a spirantized allophone
of an etymological *k, not an independent phoneme. My concern in this book is
with synchrony, not diachrony, so that I will investigate the problem from a
synchronic point of view. I believe that: (a) no synchronic arguments have been
presented in support of the claim that [x] and [k] derive from one phoneme, (b)
attributing a phonemic status to [k] and an allophonic status to [x] is unsubstanti-
ated, and (c) the contexts in which [x] and [k] are found need to be formulated
explicitly. Consider the following examples:
(1) Initial [x] vs. [k]
a. x6t6r ‘has thatched a house’
b. k6f6r ‘has separated (e.g. the fireplace stones called gonzGy6)’
The initial consonant is [x] in (1a) whereas it is [k] in (1b). Here, [x] and [k] are
in exactly the same syllabic configuration in that they are initial onsets. A claim
in which [x] and [k] are one phoneme should account for their distribution in (1)
but no such account exists so far. As noted, Leslau’s (1992: 32) remark about [x]
and [k] is based on historical reconstruction. In his view, [x] in x6t6r, (1a), is a
spirantized *k because this word starts with [k] in other Semitic languages, as in
Amharic k6dd6n. His claim that [x] is a spirantized *k is probably influenced by
well-documented instances of /k/ → [x] alternations in e.g. Tigrinya and Biblical
Hebrew. But given the initial spirant in (1a), what is valid for these languages
may not be for Chaha. In fact, even from a diachronic perspective, Leslau’s
contention is not straightforward. For instance, [k] in k6f6r, (1b), is not a spirant
regardless of the fact that this word starts with [k] in other Semitic languages, as
in Amharic k6ff6l. Leslau (1992: 32) admits that: “[n]ot every initial k is spiran-
tized into x. There are as many nouns and verbs with initial k as there are with
x” and provides no explanation for this. Things get even worse when we observe
that the [k] of (1b) remains a stop even intervocalically, as in yG-k6fGr ‘he
separates’. This lack of alternation is valid for all k-initial verbs.
The second problem is that some [k]’s alternate with [x], e.g. the Jussive
and Imperfective vs. the Perfective of (2a) below, whereas some [k]’s do not
alternate with [x], as in (2b). Based on historical considerations, Leslau
(1992: 616) views [x] in y6-mxGr, Jussive of (2a), as a spirantized *k because the
medial consonant is [k] in Amharic yG-mk6r and other related languages.
Even though the etymological reconstruction may be sound I do not see any
argument in contemporary Chaha to show that [x] in y6-mxGr derives from an
underlying /k/. First of all, given that [x] in y6-mxGr is postnasal it is in a privi-
leged context of strengthening and not of spirantization. Secondly, had there been
postnasal spirantization in Chaha the [k] in y6-]kGs, Jussive of (2b), could have
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 93

spirantized since the medial consonant is [k] in Amharic yG-nk6s and other related
languages. But there is no context in which the [k] of y6-]kGs surfaces as [x]. It
remains a stop even when it is intervocalic, as in yG-r6k(G)s, the Imperfective of (2b).
(2) The x/k alternation and its absence
Jussive Imperfective Perfective
a. y6-mxGr yG-m6xGr m6k6r ‘advise’
b. y6-]kGs yG-r6k(G)s n6k6s ‘bite’
Comparing the Imperfective of (2a) and (2b) reveals that [x] and [k] are in the
same syllabic configuration. They are postvocalic onsets. Leslau (1992: 618)
attributes the absence of the spirant [x] in yG-r6k(G)s to the fact that [G] is optional
and that k is not intervocalic when [G] is absent, as in yG-r6ks. But this analysis
cannot be maintained because [x] is found when G is optional, e.g. y6-srax(G)t ‘let
him mess up’. In fact, [x] appears even in preconsonantal positions, as in yG-
m6xr-o ‘they (m.) advise’ (vs. yG-r6ks-o ‘they (m.) bite’). Furthermore, [x] does
not necessarily obtain even in intervocalic positions, e.g. y6-t-rak6f ‘let him
instigate a quarrel!’ So, being in a preconsonantal position is not the right reason
for the absence of the spirant in yG-r6ks. Similarly, in the Jussives of (2a) and
(2b), [x] and [k] are in identical syllabic configurations, both are postnasal
onsets. The distribution of [x] and [k] in the Jussive and Imperfective of (2), as
well as in (1), suggests that these sounds are not in complementary distribution.
McCarthy (1986a: 221–3) does not state whether x and k are contrastive but
it is implicit in his analysis that he assumes them to be. To account for the x/k
alternation in (2a) he also proposes a postvocalic spirantization rule, which he
claims to be feature-changing because [x] is also found in nonpostvocalic
contexts as in x6t6r, (1a). But this postvocalic spirantization rule is indefensible
for two reasons. First, it suffers from overgeneration since [x] in y6-mxGr,
Jussive of (2a), is a spirant even though it is postnasal. Bear in mind that [x] and
[k] in (2a) have to be derived from a unique underlying form (which can either
be /x/ or /k/ but not both), so an analysis that posits /k/ and derives [x] of yG-
m6xGr by postvocalic spirantization cannot posit /x/ for y6-mxGr. Second, it
suffers from undergeneration since [k] in yG-r6k(G)s, Imperfective of (2b), is a
stop even though it is postvocalic. Therefore, any rule of postvocalic
spirantization will make wrong predictions.
To account for the presence of postconsonantal [x] in y6-mxGr ‘let him
advise!’ and postvocalic [k] in yG-r6k(G)s ‘he bites’, Petros (1995: 427–8) pro-
posed that x and k are contrastive. According to this analysis, x and k are the
underlying phonemes of yG-m6xGr and yG-r6k(G)s, respectively. To account for the
alternations, a rule is proposed whereby /x/ strengthens to [k] in the Perfective
94 SOUND MUTATIONS

m6k6r ‘has advised’ because it is a (simplified) geminate. In that account, Chaha

does not spirantize /k/ to [x]. Instead, it strengthens /x/ to [k], resulting in the
neutralization of /x/ and /k/ in the Perfective of (2). So [k] is a stop in y6-]kGs
because it is a stop in UR and there is no k-spirantization. Similarly, [x] is the
underlying radical in y6-mxGr and it remains a spirant because it is a singleton. In
this case, [k] in m6k6r is the strengthened allophone of /x/. In such an analysis,
[k] may represent a simplified geminate /xx/ or an underlying singleton /k/
whereas [x] may not represent a spirantized /k/ (i.e. /x/ → [x] while /k/, /kk/,
/xx/ → [k]). This analysis seems to be supported by the only minimal pair I have
found in the language. It is given in (3a) and (3b).
(3) Only minimal pair involving [x] and [k]
a. x6na ‘has put/prohibited’
a-x6na ‘has shouted’
a-]-x6na ‘has not put/prohibited’
b. k6na ‘has ascended’
a-k6na ‘has ascended sth’
a-]-k6na ‘has not ascended’
It can be observed in (3) that a contrast involving x/k is found in initial, intervocalic
and postnasal positions even though all the forms in (3) derive from the stems x6na
and k6na. Given the existence of a minimal pair and numerous surface contrasts, one
may wonder why I wish to defend, in this book, the position that both sounds
come from only one phoneme. To begin with, the fact that x6na and k6na is the
only minimal pair throws suspicion on the claim that x and k are contrastive.1 In
addition and in contrast to the stem-initial x/k distribution in (1), k-final verbs
(where k is singleton) such as Amharic marr6k ‘has captured’ are unattested:
(4) A final singleton voiceless velar is always a spirant [x]
Jussive Imperfective Perfective
a. y6-marx yG-manx man6x ‘capture’
b. y6-m6s(G)x yG-mes(G)x mes6x ‘chew’
Regardless of the presence or absence of a vowel before [x] and irrespective of
the nature of the preceding radicals, a final singleton [k] is never found. This
shows that [x] and [k] are in fact in complementary distribution in word-final

1. Also relevant are the derived verbs (from the stems of (3)) a-t-xana ‘(the crowd) has shouted’ and
a-t-kana ‘has put  diagonally’. Even though pairs such as Gxa ‘water’ vs. Gkka ‘like that’ and 6xwa
‘now’ vs. 6kkwa ‘today’ exist, their contrast is also expressed in weight, not just in continuancy. See
§3.6 on strengthening of a geminated /x/.
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 95

position. The Jussive and Imperfective of (4a) also refute proposals which derive
[x] from /k/ by a postvocalic/intervocalic spirantization since [x] in these forms
is not postvocalic/intervocalic. Furthermore, neither the spirantization nor the
strengthening analysis provides an explanation for this complementarity.
In addition to the stem-final x/k complementarity in (4), and regardless of
whether we adopt the claim that x and k are contrastive, some systematic gaps
remain unexplained. For example, setting a handful of exceptions aside, an initial
[x] is found only when neither a fricative nor /A/ follows, as in x6t6r (not *k6t6r)
‘has thatched a house’, (1a), whereas an initial [k] is found only when a fricative
follows, as in k6f6r (not *x6f6r) ‘has separated’, (1b), and k6t6f (not *x6t6f) ‘has
hashed’, or when a radical /A/ follows, as in kad (not *xad) ‘has denied’ and
k6pa (not *x6pa) ‘has bent sth’. Moreover, all and only verbs with a penultimate
x/k alternation have a final stop or sonorant, e.g. y6-mxGr/yG-m6xGr/m6k6r ‘advise’,
(2a), whereas all and only verbs without a penultimate x/k alternation have a
final fricative or /A/, e.g. y6-]kGs/yG-r6k(G)s/n6k6s ‘bite’, (2b), and y6-fka/yG-
f6ka/f6ka ‘escape’. These facts show that [x] and [k] are indeed in complementa-
ry distribution even in (1) and (2).
The complementary nature of [x] and [k] in (1), (2) and (4), combined with
the fact that x6na and k6na is the only minimal pair, leads me to abandon the
idea in Petros (1995: 427–8) that x and k are contrastive. Rather, a solution to the
apparent minimal pairs shown in (3) should be found (see §3.4). In other words,
despite the apparent contrast in (3) and the fact that [x] and [k] in (1) and (2) are
found in the same syllabic configurations, these sounds are in fact in complemen-
tary distribution, hence not contrastive. Accordingly, I agree with Leslau that x
and k are not independent phonemes but for very different reasons.
I claim that the spirant [x] is found when neither a fricative nor /A/ follows,
i.e. when either only stops or/and sonorants follow, as in (1a) and (2a), or
nothing follows, as in (4). The stop [k] is found when the following radical is a
fricative, as in (1b) and (2b). [k] is also found when there is a following radical
/A/ as in yG-f6ka ‘he escapes’ and k6pa ‘has bent sth’. (See §3.3.3 for discussion
of the transparency of nonfricatives in strengthening /x/.) The /A/ derives from
etymological pharyngeal or laryngeal segments, some of which can be viewed as
fricatives. This may explain why /A/ mostly functions like a fricative in turning
a preceding voiceless velar into a stop. Finally, I claim that the nature of a
preceding radical or radicals plays no role on the realization of the voiceless velar.
As mentioned above, I propose that [x] in Chaha does not derive from the
spirantization of /k/. In addition, I agree with Petros (1995) in claiming that [k]
in words such as m6k6r ‘has advised’, Perfective of (2a), is derived from an
underlying /x/. But I differ from Petros (1995) in claiming that [k] in words such
96 SOUND MUTATIONS

as y6-]kGs ‘let him bite!’, Jussive of (2b), is also an underlying /x/.2 According
to the present analysis, the only underlying velars of Chaha are /g, x, k’/, and [k]
is derived from either /g/ or /x/. In contrast to what has been assumed so far in
the literature, I claim that the distribution of [x] and [k] is governed by root
structure constraints and not by their position in the syllable. Specifically, the
distribution of [x] and [k] in Chaha does not depend on whether they are in pre-
or post- vocalic or consonantal position. Rather, strengthening of the underlying
/x/ follows from the need to respect a constraint prohibiting a continuant velar
consonant which is followed by a [+] radical in the root. I regard the root
as a morpheme whose domain is relevant here. Even though I consider No
Precontinuant [x], (5), as a constraint that holds for all continuant velars (and not
for x alone) x is the only continuant velar sound in Chaha, so I simplify the
name as No Precontinuant [x], instead of the more appropriate No Precontinuant
Continuant Velar.3
(5) No Precontinuant [x]
* +cont [+cont]
Dorsal

Due to (5), a precontinuant /x/ strengthens to [k], i.e. the [+] of /x/ delinks.
This can be seen as a case of OCP-triggered regressive dissimilation in continu-
ancy. I assume that [k] (or [−] in obstruents) is simply the absence of the
marked value [+] of obstruents, as no phonological process mentions
[−] of obstruents. (Whether the default [−] is subsequently filled in or
not has no impact on my analysis). /x/ remains [x] when it is at the end of the
root or followed by a radical which is not [+]. Continuant sonorants do not
trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/ because [+] is the unmarked
stricture feature in sonorants and is consequently unspecified (see §3.8 for
discussion of this). Strengthening affects /x/, but not the other fricatives /f, s, z/,
because /x/ alone is a Dorsal (or spirant). The prediction is that a precontinuant
/>/ would strengthen to [g] but we cannot verify this as Chaha has no />/.
In my account, /x/ strengthening is a feature-changing process since it
delinks the underlying [+] specification of /x/. But it is not neutralization
because Chaha does not contrast x and k. In many languages, such as Berber,

2. An analysis which derives [x] and [k] from /K/, a voiceless velar archiphoneme unspecified for
continuancy, may obtain more or less equivalent results by assuming an elsewhere spirantization of
/K/. But I adopt /x/, for it eliminates the need for the spirantization without additional cost.
3. A rule-based approach can express (5) as a precontinuant strengthening in which the [+] of
/x/ delinks when followed by a [+] in the root.
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 97

Biblical Hebrew and Tigrinya, doubly linked obstruents fail to spirantize

(Guerssel 1977, Schein 1981, Kenstowicz 1982, Lowenstamm and Prunet 1986,
Scobbie 1991 and Denais 1990). The other consequence of doubling is strength-
ening, as in the case of Chaha /x/. In the following sections, I will discuss all
instances of /x/ and show how (5) accounts for its strengthening.

3.3 The role of a following radical in the strengthening of /x/

In this section I show that a singleton /x/ strengthens to [k] when it is followed
by a [+] radical. The phonemes of Chaha with an underlying [+]
specification are the fricatives /f, s, z/, the spirant /x/ and the radical /A/. Approx-
imants are unspecified for [+]. When followed by stops or sonorants (i.e.
elsewhere) a singleton /x/ remains unchanged. A geminated /x/ always turns to
[k]. Table 3.1 summarizes my claims,
Table 3.1. The contexts for the allophones of /x/
a. /x/ b. /xx/

[k] ... [+cont] [x] elsewhere [k]

where only {f, s, z, x, A} are [+].

3.3.1 When the radical following /x/ is a fricative

In (6), the consonant that immediately follows /x/ is a fricative. This /x/ strength-
ens to [k] in all instances except the only exception in (6c). Whether /x/ is
labialized or palatalized makes no difference, which shows that the labial or
palatal vocoid (regardless of its continuancy) does not trigger strengthening of a
preceding /x/. For instance, /x/ in y-a-ky6s and in y-a-kw6w strengthens because it
is followed by a fricative. A vocoid that docks on /x/ does not trigger strengthen-
ing unless the vocoid itself is followed by a fricative, e.g. y-a-xwGrk’ ‘let him
loosen!’ (see §3.3.4).
(6) Strengthening when /x/ is immediately followed by a fricative
a. Stem-initial /x/
y6-kfGr ‘Let him separate!’
y6-kGft ‘Let him open sth!’
y6-kz6ö ‘Let it become inferior!’
y6-ks6r ‘Let him strain!’
y6-ks6r ‘Let it become charcoal!’
98 SOUND MUTATIONS

y6-ks6r ‘Let him go bankrupt!’

y6-k6w ‘Let him crush sth!’
y6-kw6w ‘Let it be prickly!’
y-a-kw6w ‘Let him remove fibers!’
y6-k6sGs ‘Let him accuse!’
y-a-k 6s
y
‘Let him joke!’
y6-kyaf ‘Let it drizzle!’
b. Penultimate /x/
y6-]kGs ‘Let him bite/let a plant root!’
y-a-ö6]kGs ‘Let him assign as a pretext!’
y-a-]kGs ‘Let him light the fire!’
y-6kGs ‘Let him wait!’
y6-]kGf ‘Let him provoke a quarrel!’
y6-tGks ‘Let him burn sth!’
y6-t6kwGs ‘Let him fire a gun!’ (< )
y6-m6rkwGs ‘Let him be a monk!’ (< )
c. Exception
y6-t-rax6s ‘Let him bite repeatedly, quarrel!’
As can be seen from the twenty verbs in (6), /x/ strengthens when followed by
a fricative. A hypothetical *y6-xfGr or *y6-]xGs, where /x/ is immediately followed
by a fricative is unattested. However, /x/ exceptionally remains [x] in y6-t-rax6s
‘let him bite repeatedly, quarrel!’, the habitual of y6-]kGs ‘let him bite!’
The [+] of /x/ in y6-kfGr is followed by the [+] of /f/, as shown in
(7a). Similarly, the [+] of /x/ in y6-]kGs is followed by the [+] of /s/,
(7b). As mentioned earlier, /r/ is a sonorant and sonorants are not contrastively
[+]. So I assume that approximants are not specified as [+] (see §3.8).
(7) a. y6-C C G C
| | |
x f r
[+] [+] []
[Dorsal]
y6-kfGr ‘Let him separate!’
b. y6-C C G C
| | |
r x s
[] [+] [+]
[Dorsal]
y6-]kGs ‘Let him bite!’
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 99

If /x/ in (7a) and (7b) remains [+] it will violate No Precontinuant [x]. To
avoid this violation, the offending underlying [+] of /x/ delinks, resulting
in a stop, which in my account is the absence of the marked [+] of
obstruents.4 Note that /x/ in (7a, b) is not a geminate and its strengthening
cannot be attributed to gemination. But it is followed by a fricative and its
strengthening can be attributed only to No Precontinuant [x]. This constraint is
also respected in nouns, e.g. kGf6ya ‘a burning piece of wood separated from the
fire’, kGz6ra ‘cane’ and k6s6r ‘charcoal’ and applies also to a labialized and
palatalized /x/, e.g. kwGfn6 ‘chickenpox’ and kyGs ‘pocket’.

3.3.2 When the radical following /x/ is /A/

In (8), the radical that follows /x/ is /A/. In this context, /x/ strengthens without
exception. (There are infixal a’s but these do not count, as discussed in §3.4.1.)
(8) Strengthening when /x/ is immediately followed by /A/
a. Stem-initial /x/
y6-kad ‘Let him deny!’
y6-kaö ‘Let him pile!’
y6-kas ‘Let him pay!’
t6-kaw ‘has quarreled’
b. Penultimate /x/
yG-f6ka ‘He escapes’.
yG-ö6ka ‘He becomes self-sufficient’.
yG-m6ka ‘It troubles someone’.
yG-t6ka ‘He replaces a stage of 6s6t by another!’
y6-wka ‘Let it ferment!’ (from y6-öwka)
y-a-ösaka ‘Let him mimic!’
y6-t-saka ‘Let him be lucky!’
Here, the radical that follows /x/ is /A/ and I claim that /A/ triggers strengthening
of /x/. Verbs like y6-kas and t6-kaw, from (8a), are inconclusive because strength-
ening could be triggered as well by the fricative that follows /A/ since these
verbs contain two [+] radicals following /x/. But in y6-kaö and y6-kad, from
(8a), strengthening cannot be triggered by ö (a sonorant) or d since these
consonants are nonfricatives, which never trigger strengthening, e.g. y6-xöGö ‘let

4. This may be seen as a repair strategy (Paradis 1993) or preferring the bad (which delinks the
underlying [+] of /x/) to the worse (which violates (5)) in the framework of Optimality Theory
(Prince and Smolensky 1993 and McCarthy and Prince 1993).
100 SOUND MUTATIONS

him encircle!’ and y6-xdGr ‘let him thatch a house!’ Similarly, /A/ is the last
radical in (8b) so it is the only possible trigger of strengthening. In this regard,
/A/ differs from approximants and patterns with continuant obstruents as it
triggers strengthening of a preceding /x/.
My analysis excludes [x] before a fricative such as *y6-xfGr (vs. y6-kfGr ‘let
him separate!’) and *y6-]xGs (vs. y6-]kGs ‘let him bite!’). Similarly, it excludes
[x] before /A/ such as *y6-xad (vs. y6-kad ‘let him deny!’) and *yG-f6xa (vs. yG-
f6ka ‘he escapes’). Thus, it offers a unified account for strengthening before a
fricative and /A/, categorizing the two in the class of segments specified [+].
In previous analyses, [k] in (8) is expected to spirantize because it is a
singleton and intervocalic. Yet, it is not, as first mentioned in Polotsky
(1938: 140). Since then, different proposals has been advanced to account for
this problem. For instance, Hetzron (1972a: 135, note 57) suggests that words
like yG-f6ka ‘he escapes’ are derived historically from yG-f6kLa (L = laryngeal).
According to him, [k] was the first member of the consonant cluster kL, i.e. it
was not intervocalic and was consequently not spirantized. However, this analysis
cannot hold given the presence of [x] as the first member of a consonant cluster,
e.g. yG-m6xr-o ‘they (m.) advise’. In addition, in words such as y6-t-saka, from
(8b), [k] is intervocalic (cf. y6-t-s6ö6r ‘let it break!’) so it does not form a cluster
with a laryngeal. In my analysis, neither is [k] an underlying stop in these words
(or elsewhere) nor is [x] a spirantized /k/. The [k] here is rather a strengthened
/x/, where strengthening applies due to the following [+] obstruent or /A/.
Leslau (1992: 618) cites yG-f6ka ‘he escapes’ as an example in which: “the
velar remains stop in the biradical verbs.” This statement presents two problems.
First, it does not explain why spirantization is blocked in the so-called biradicals.
The spirant is found even in verbs which have only two surface consonants, e.g.
y6-rax ‘let him send!’ and x6n6 ‘has dug a hole’, showing that having two
surface consonants is not a reasonable account for the absence of the spirant [x].
Second, analyzing verbs such as yG-f6ka as biradicals misses an important
generalization. For instance, it implies that the ö/p alternation in y6-göa ‘let him
enter!’ vs. g6pa-m ‘he has entered’ occurs in a stem-final position. However, this
alternation affects only the penult. Similarly, we saw in examples such as y6-
marx/yG-manx/man6x ‘capture’, (4a), that there is no final singleton [k] in Chaha.
This fact, in conjunction with the strengthening in (8b), shows that [k] in words
such as yG-f6ka is not the final radical. It is the penultimate radical, with /A/
being the final one. It then follows that yG-f6ka is not a biradical. Leslau
(1992: 130) states that such verbs originate from triradicals while Petros
(1996b: 159–160) and Prunet (1996b: 182ff.) provide arguments that /A/ func-
tions like any radical in contemporary Chaha and Inor, respectively.
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 101

A prevocalic nongeminated [k] is found also in a number of nouns, e.g. tGk6

‘child’, as noted by Leslau (1992: 617). Assuming that the final [6] derives from
the radical /A/, an analysis such as mine, which attributes the absence of a
spirant [x] to a following /A/, predicts the stop [k] in such examples.

3.3.3 When /x/ and a following fricative/A are separated by a consonant

In words such as k6f6r ‘has separated’ and f6ka ‘has escaped’ /x/ is immediately
followed by a fricative or /A/ (evidently, at the level of radicals). Consider now
the verbs in (9), where /x/ is separated from the following fricative/A by a
consonant. In such cases, too, the stop allophone [k] obtains, as shown below.
(9) Strengthening when a consonant intervenes between /x/ and a
following fricative/A
k6t6f ‘has hashed’
kGö6s6s ‘has unraveled fiber’
a-köab6s ‘has made dirty’
a-]-kraw6s ‘has fidgeted’
k6ta ‘has worried’
k6pa ‘has bent sth’
a-k6pa ‘has slacked off’
t6-kwram6m ‘has over-praised oneself’
a-kran6 ‘has rented to’ (< )
y
a-k rana ‘has exaggerated’
Exceptions:
x6da ‘has betrayed’
x6na ‘has put/prohibited’
a-x6na ‘has shouted’
As can be seen from the list, /x/ strengthens irrespective of the presence of a
consonant separating it from the following fricative/A. As we will see in the
following section, a nonfricative does not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/,
e.g. y6-xöGö ‘let him encircle!’ (recall that ö is not a fricative) and y6-xr6m ‘let
him spend the year!’ Hence, it is the distant fricative/A which triggers strength-
ening of /x/ irrespective of an intervening nonfricative.
Even though my analysis predicts that the final /A/ should trigger strength-
ening in the two stems x6na and x6da (exceptions in (9)) the spirant allophone
[x] is found. Here, absence of strengthening is exceptional. (Note that x6da is
also exceptional in not devoicing /d/ since this is the simplified geminate penult of
a Perfective (see §2.2.2.) But the strengthening observed in (9) also occurs in nouns,
e.g. k6ösasa ‘unraveled fiber’, kwGr6w6 ‘type of plant’ and kGtf w6 ‘hashed meal’.
102 SOUND MUTATIONS

3.3.4 When /x/ is followed by radicals other than fricative/A

The radicals following /x/ in (10) are neither fricatives nor /A/. In such cases, /x/
remains a spirant [x], as shown below.
(10) Absence of strengthening when /x/ is followed by radicals other than
fricative/A
a. Stem-initial /x/
y6-xtGö ‘Let him vaccinate!’
y6-x6tGt ‘Let him surround sth!’
y-a-x6tGr ‘Let him precede!’
y6-ç(G)c’ ‘Let him boast!’
y-a-xdGr ‘Let him dress someone!’
y6-xdGr ‘Let him thatch a house!’
y6-xdGm ‘Let him look after!’
y6-xöGö ‘Let him encircle!’
y-a-xGöd ‘Let him respect someone!’
y6-x6ö/pGr ‘Let him reply!’
y-a-ç6ö ‘Let him hide!’
y-a-x6mbGr ‘Let him invert cooked food!’5
y-a-x6mbGö ‘Let him cover sth!’
y6-xr6m ‘Let him spend the year!’
y6-x6rtGm ‘Let him cut sth off!’
y6-xw6rGr ‘Let him amputate!’
y-a-xwGrk’ ‘Let him loosen!’
y6-xw7 ‘Let him spill!’
y6-xi ‘Let him dig!’
y-a-xwramt’ ‘Let him chew!’
y-a-xmac ‘Let him strain people!’6
y6-x6mtGt ‘Let it become hard!’
y6-xw6mt’Gt’ ‘Let it be sour!’
y6-x6mGr ‘Let him adorn someone!’

5. The [m] in y-a-x6mbGr and y-a-x6mbGö is a nasalized /r/ since it alternates with [r], e.g. a-xr6p6r
‘has inverted cooked food (from the cooking pot to a dish)’ and a-xr6p6ö ‘has covered ’. No
underlying /m/ ever turns to [r].
6. I assume that both [a]’s in y-a-xmac are affixes.
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 103

b. Penultimate /x/
y6-srax(G)t ‘Let him mess up!’
y6-t-mwax6t ‘Let him vow!’
y-a-drax(G)t ‘Let him hurry (tr.)!’
y-a-m6rxGt ‘Let him indicate!’
y6-öx/k6t ‘Let it rot!’
y6-]x/kGt ‘Let him shatter!’
y6-]x6ö ‘Let him find!’
y-a-raxGö ‘Let him publicize!’
y6-t-rax6ö ‘Let them meet!’
y-a-txGr ‘Let him be naughty!’
y6-öx6r ‘Let him lack!’
y6-mxGr ‘Let him advise!’
y6-sx6r ‘Let him get drunk!’7
y6-tx6r ‘Let it diminish!’
y-a-maxGr ‘Let him be on strike!’
y-a-t-taxGr ‘Let him junk!’
y6-fx6r ‘Let him multiply!’
y6-sxwe ‘Let it be thorny’8
y6-öç ‘Let him cry!’
y6-sç ‘Let him flee!’
y6-t-öaç ‘Let it suit!’
c. Exceptions (all but y6-f6\ky are loans from Amharic)
y6-kö6r ‘Let him be respectable!’
y6-kmGr ‘Let him pile sth up!’
y-6kGm ‘Let him give medical care!’
y6-m6skGr ‘Let him witness!’
y
y6-f6\k ‘Let him break in two!’
y6-f w6kGr ‘Let him boast!’
The /x/ in (10) is followed by neither /A/ nor a fricative. In the 45 verbs of
(10a, b), /x/ remains a spirant.9 My analysis excludes words such as *y6-köGö

7. Leslau (1992: 619) incorrectly recorded y6-sk6r for my y6-sx6r.

8. This verb is included here even though /x/ is not the penult, cf. y6-sx6rGU → y6sxwe. Note also
that the high vocoids /U, I/ differ from /A/ in not triggering the strengthening of a preceding /x/.
9. As noted in Leslau (1992: 619–620) [x] and [k] are in free variation in y6-öx6t/y6-ök6t and y6-
]xGt/y6-]kGt. Here, /x/ optionally strengthens even though this is unexpected in my analysis. It is
possible that these verbs are loans from Amharic b6kk6t6 and a-n6kk6t6 respectively.
104 SOUND MUTATIONS

(vs. y6-xöGö ‘let him encircle!’) and *y6-kr6m (vs. y6-xr6m ‘let him spend the
year!’) where a nongeminated [k] would not be followed by a fricative/A.
Similar observations hold in nouns such as xGrGm ‘year’, x6öGr ‘prairies’, f6xGr
‘evil act’ and x6p6ö-ar ‘enclosure’ where neither /A/ nor a fricative follows /x/.
In addition, the spirant in nouns such as çGn ‘heart’ and xw6r6r-a ‘shell of seeds,
fruits’ shows that the secondary articulation on /x/ has no effect. Nevertheless,
since the [k] in (10c) is not followed by a fricative or /A/, strengthening in these
verbs does not follow from my analysis. This may be due to the fact that five of
the six verbs are Amharic loans and the [k] in them is borrowed as is, so it is
not a strengthened /x/. But strengthening in y6-f6\ky, which I believe is native,
goes against the predictions of my analysis. Similarly, [k] in kGt ‘a special
occasion’ is exceptional: my analysis would incorrectly predict xGt.
There is also strengthening of /x/ in the I-second quadriradicals of (11) even
though it is not followed by a fricative/A.
(11) Strengthening in I-second quadriradicals
Jussive Perfective
y-6kGr 6ky6r ‘plane wood’
y6-t6kGr c6k6r ‘cook (tr.)’
y6-s6k(G)t w6k6t ‘prepare sth’
We saw in §2.2.7 that the deletion of the second radical /I/ in the Jussive (i.e.
depalatalization) triggers compensatory gemination of the penult, as in y6-d6IöGr
→ y6-d6ööGr → y6-d6pGr ‘let him finish!’ In addition, the penult always gemi-
nates in the Perfective. Accordingly, [k] in these verbs is a simplified geminate,
e.g. y6-t6IxGr → y6-t6xxGr → y6-t6kGr ‘let him cook (tr.)!’, and its strengthening
follows from it being a geminate. These exceptions are consequently only
apparent counter-examples to my analysis of /x/ strengthening. They also offer
additional arguments to the claim that gemination in the Jussive of I-second
quadriradicals is introduced to compensate for depalatalization.
We saw in §3.3.1 that fricatives trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/, e.g.
y6-kfGr (not *y6-xfGr) ‘let him separate!’ Similarly, we saw in §3.3.2 that /A/
triggers strengthening of /x/, e.g. y6-fka (not *y6-fxa) ‘let him escape!’ On the
other hand, we saw in this subsection that stops do not trigger strengthening of
a preceding /x/, e.g. y6-xdGr (not *y6-kdGr) ‘let him thatch a house!’ Furthermore,
high vocoids do not trigger strengthening of /x/, e.g. y6-öxGI → y6-öç (not *y6-
öky) ‘let him cry!’ and y6-x6UrGr → y6-xw6rGr (not *y6-kw6rGr) ‘let him amputate!’
In this respect, /A/ forms a natural class with fricatives though in other respects
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 105

it functions like a sonorant.10

In this section, a total of 99 verbs containing /x/ have been examined. Only
in three verbs (x6na, a-x6na and x6da — the exceptions in (9)) is [x] found
irrespective of the presence of a following /A/. Only in one derived form (y6-t-
rax6s, the exception in (6)) is [x] found in the presence of an immediately
following fricative. In addition, only in five borrowed verbs (the exceptions in
(10)), is a nongeminated [k] found even when not followed by a fricative/A. In
the remaining 89 verbs (89.89% of the total 99), [k] is found only if a fricative
or /A/ follows whereas [x] is found when any other radical follows. These
observations conform to the constraint No Precontinuant [x], which causes the
strengthening of /x/ to [k].

3.4 Some apparent problematic cases

3.4.1 When /x/ is followed by an infix -a-

We have seen that in words such as y6-kad ‘let him deny!’ an [a] originating
from the radical /A/ functions like a fricative in triggering strengthening of /x/.
But aspectual vowels, such as the 6 in x6t6ö (below), do not trigger such
strengthening as /x/ is not strengthened even though it is immediately followed
by 6. This can be attributed to the fact that strengthening is conditioned at the
level of radicals. This, in turn, predicts that an infix -a- cannot trigger strengthen-
ing of a preceding /x/ because the two are on different tiers. Absence of
strengthening regardless of the underlined infix [a] in (12b) shows that this
prediction is borne out.
(12) An infix -a- does not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/
a. Stems without an infix -a-
x6t6ö ‘contaminated’
ç6c’6 ‘boasted’
x6p6ö ‘encircled’
ç6p6r ‘replied’
ç6t6t ‘escorted’
x6da ‘betrayed’

10. However, note that /A/ functions like a sonorant, and not like a fricative, in not licensing a
preceding doubly linked [voice], e.g. t’6öö6A → t’6pa ‘has skinned’ and k’6öö6r → k’6p6r ‘has
planted’ vs. t’6öö6s → t’6b6s ‘has fried’.
106 SOUND MUTATIONS

x6d6m ‘looked after’

a-x6b6d ‘respected’
b. Stems with an infix -a-
t6-xat6ö ‘contaminated each other’
t6-çac’6 ‘been encouraged’
a-çap6ö ‘encircled en masse’
a-t-çap6r ‘echoed’
a-çat6t ‘escorted en masse’
t6-xada ‘betrayed each other’
t6-xad6m ‘looked after each other’
t6-xab6d ‘respected each other’
The a in (12) is not part of the radical; it is an infix. It parallels the -a- in t6-
sap6r ‘have broken each other’ and, joined by a prefix, it conveys a habitual or
reciprocal action.
There also exists the problematic xar/ç6r/çGr alternation in the stems of (13),
which occurs in the absence of a prefix and reciprocal meaning.11 /x/ is fol-
lowed by [a] in the Jussive and Perfective of (13a), and No Precontinuant [x]
predicts that it should strengthen. Yet, it does not. Thus, the precontinuant [x]
violates (5).
(13) Jussive Imperfective Perfective
a. y6-xar yG-çGr xar ‘know’
b. y-a-ç6r y-a-ç6r a-ç6r ‘become clear/evident’
y6-t-ç6r yG-t-ç6r t6-ç6r ‘be known’
y6-t-ç6ç6r yG-t-ç6ç6r t6-ç6ç6r ‘introduce each other’
y-a-t-ç6ç6r y-a-t-ç6ç6r a-t-ç6ç6r ‘introduce somebody to somebody’
I believe that a solution to this problem may come from a better understanding
of the medial radical of the stems in (13). The decisive question here is whether
/A/ as found in xar or /I/ as found in -ç6r/-çGr is the medial radical. Prunet
(1996b: 185) tentatively assumes that both segments are part of the root, hence
–xAIr in Inor. The presence of /I/ (i.e. palatalization) in most of the stems in (13)
suggests that /I/ is one of the radicals. On the other hand, the absence of
strengthening in xar (compared to the strengthening in kad ‘has denied’) suggests
that [a] is not part of the radical. Based on this, I assume that the root is –xIr.

11. Verbs with similar alternations include y6-sar/yG-wGr/sar ‘be happy’, y6-ö6r/ yG-öGr/bar ‘say’ and
y-aö/yG-ö/aö ‘give’ but palatalization does not occur in the last two verbs due to the absence of a
palatalizable segment. See also Leslau (1992: 462) and Prunet (1996b: 185).
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 107

Only now does absence of strengthening follow from (5) because /x/ is not
followed by a fricative/A. In my account, [a] in xar is not the radical /A/, it is
either the infixal -a- or an /æ/ (see the following paragraph). This also accounts
for nouns such as ã-xar-ut ‘ignorance’, xara ‘bark (of a tree)’ and xaö6-m ‘again,
re-’.12 Similarly, in nouns such as xwGr6ta ‘kind of tree’ and xw6r6ra ‘husk’ the
vowel [a] may be suffixal, which explains why it does not trigger strengthening.
It is also possible to derive the dual nature of the medial radical in (13) by
proposing an abstract medial phoneme /æ/, which combines the features of /A/
and /I/. The /æ/ palatalizes a consonant as in (13b) or becomes [a] as in xar. It
also surfaces as [7], e.g. bar ‘has said’ vs. t6-ö7ö7r ‘has said to each other’.
Palatalization in yGçGr ‘he knows’ shows that the vowel of xar can palatalize the
preceding consonant whereas that of kad cannot: yG-k6d (not *yG-kyGd). Further-
more, while /A/ and /I/ are contrastive stem-finally, e.g. f6t’t’6A → f6t’a ‘has
sharpened’ vs. f6t’t’6I → f6c’6 ‘has ground’, their contrast is neutralized stem-
initially. The neutralized stem-initial /A/ and /I/ can be seen as /æ/, which
sometimes surfaces as [a] as in at6r ‘has spent the night’ and sometimes as [y6]
as in a-t-y6t6r ‘leave sth for tomorrow’ (to be compared with a-t-s6p6r ‘cause to
break’). This [a]/[y6] alternation receives a plausible account if we assume that
both alternants derive from /æ/. In addition, the spirant of xar and the stop of
kad show that the a’s found in the two words are not the same. For this, Chaha
needs to distinguish two [a]’s, one originating from /æ/ and the other from /A/.
It is possible to link this distinction with the fact that /A/ represents two histori-
cally distinct classes, namely the pharyngeal fricatives [A, ’] and the glottal
nonfricatives [‘, h]. (To indicate the dual characteristics of [a] I group it with
both front and central vowels in the vowel chart given in §1.1 but I will not
develop this idea any further here. Suffice it to say that /æ/ is like the vocoids
/U/ and /I/ in that it does not trigger the strengthening of /x/.

3.4.2 Exceptional precontinuant [x] and nonprecontinuant [k]

The other problematic case is seen in the minimal pairs below, reproduced from
(3). These data are problematic in two ways. First, the precontinuant [x] in (14a)
contradicts the constraint No Precontinuant [x], (5), which holds even when /x/
and the following [+] radical are not adjacent (see §3.3.3).

12. This special adverb agrees with the subject of the verb, xaö-xwG-m c6n6-xwG-m ‘I came again’,
xaö-6ma-m c6n-6ma-m ‘they () came again’, etc.
108 SOUND MUTATIONS

(14) Only minimal pair involving [x] and [k]

a. x6na ‘has put/prohibited’
a-x6na ‘has shouted’
a-]-x6na ‘has not put/prohibited’
b. k6na ‘has ascended’
a-k6na ‘has ascended sth’
a-]-k6na ‘has not ascended’
An analysis that prohibits [x] before /A/ must account for its presence in x6na.
Such an analysis must also account for the [x] in nouns such as Gxa ‘water’ and
6xwa ‘now’. These forms show that there are rare cases of /x/ which do not
strengthen before /A/. My contention is that absence of strengthening in these
words should be attributed to the dual (fricative and vocoid) nature of /A/. Note
that such an exception has not been found before a fricative. Even though /A/ in
most cases triggers strengthening like a fricative it rarely functions like a high
vocoid and does not trigger strengthening. When it functions like a high vocoid
it is a sonorant and does not include [+]. So, if we assume that [a] in x6na
and Gxa is not [+], such words do not violate (5). See Prunet (1996b: 197–8)
for an opinion that Inor gutturals pattern with glides and §2.2.2 for a demonstra-
tion that even Chaha /A/ functions like a sonorant with respect to not licensing
a preceding doubly linked [voice].
The second problem is that x6na and k6na contradict the claim that [x] and
[k] are in complementary distribution. To my knowledge, these verbs are the
only counter-examples to the complementarity of [x] and [k]. I believe that they
are exceptions, but there is a historical reason for this. In my view, the [k] in
k6na comes from an etymological *k’. (Note, however, that my analysis predicts
the [k] of k6na even from /x/ if we assume that the final /A/ here is [+].)
The etymological [k’] is preserved in Amharic a-k’6nna ‘has raised/straighten
up’, t6-k’anna ‘has been straightened’ and k’6na al6 ‘has raised his head up,
revived’. The Amharic k’6(n)na and the Chaha k6na indicate ascending move-
ment. Similarly, [k] in kGr6ta ‘has lifted up’ can be seen as an original *k’, as
found in Inor, Endegeň, Gyeto, Muher, Gogot and Soddo (Leslau 1979: vol. II,
pp. 370–1). The etymological ejectives of kGr6ta can as well be detected from
related Chaha forms such as k’G^c’u bar6-m ‘has raised immediately’. Similarly,
[k] in the nouns kwGr6 ‘crow’, kw6t6 ‘loft, shelf’, k6n6 ‘right (as opposed to left),
engineer’ and k6r6 ‘day’ is a stop because it is an original *k’ as found in the
respective Amharic equivalents k’ura, k’ot’, k’6\\ and k’6n. The [k’] is preserved
also in some Gurage languages (Leslau 1992: 264). This accounts for the
exceptional minimal pair x6na and k6na.
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 109

3.5 Realization of a stem-final singleton /x/

No Precontinuant [x] predicts that any stem-final /x/ should remain a spirant ir-
respective of the nature of preceding radicals. To verify the validity of this pre-
diction, an exhaustive list of x-final verb stems (C1C2x and C1C2C3x) is given below.
(15) A stem-final singleton /x/
Jussive Imperfective Perfective
a. After a continuant radical (adjacent or not)
y6-fr6x yG-f6rx f6n6x ‘tolerate’
y6-m6s(G)x yG-mes(G)x mes6x ‘ruminate, chew’
y6-f w(G)x yG-f w6x f w6x ‘wipe out’
y6-frat(G)x yG-frat(G)x fGrat6x ‘mess’
y6-sr6x yG-s6rx s6n6x ‘be weakened’
y6-t-wam6x yG-t-wam6x t6-wam6x ‘lean on’
y6-marx yG-manx man6x ‘capture’
y6-rax yG-r6x nax ‘send’
b. After noncontinuant radicals
y6-ötGx yG-ö6t(G)x b6t6x ‘uproot’
y6-tGmx yG-t6mx t6m6x ‘dip out’
y6-tGrx yG-t6rx t6n6x ‘make incisions’
c. Exception
y6-öarGk yG-öarGk bar6k ‘bless, sanctify’ (< )
As claimed in §1.2.1, /x/ is [+]. In addition, constraint (5) does not prohibit
a final [x] since it is not followed by a [+] radical, and the constraint says
nothing about preceding radicals. As predicted, /x/ remains a spirant whether the
preceding radicals include a continuant (15a) or not (15b). Thus, yG-f6rx contains
two [+] radicals: [f] and [x]. But, this is allowed because [x] follows [f] and
therefore does not violate No Precontinuant [x]. If the view that No Preconti-
nuant [x] is an instance of OCP is correct then the possibility of having two
[+]’s as in yG-f6rx shows that the OCP may be asymmetrical for it blocks a
[x] before [+] while allowing it after [+].
A stem-final singleton [x] is found also in a number of nouns, e.g. t6r6x
‘kind of grass’, nux ‘soul’, sox ‘thorn’, s6x ‘type of disease’, and w6x ‘luck’. The
exception y6-öarGk/yG-öarGk/bar6k ‘bless, sanctify’ of (15c) is an Amharic
loanword which has not been adapted to the phonology of Chaha in many
respects. For instance, the insertion of [G] between [r] and the final obstruent in
the stem -öarGk is alien to Chaha. Similarly, a nonnasal penult in the Perfective,
as in bar6k, is unattested in native Chaha verbs.
110 SOUND MUTATIONS

I will argue in the next section that the strengthening of a doubled /x/ can
also follow from No Precontinuant [x].

3.6 Realization of a doubled /x/

Doubling as in the case of k6tkGt ‘crush sth up!’, t6-sxax6r ‘act naughtily!’ and
sGkGk ‘drive a peg!’ is different from gemination. It is long-distance, i.e. the slots
to which /x/ is linked are separated by at least one phonetic vowel. Because
doubling occurs in all aspects it does not give rise to a x/k alternation. In this
section I will account for the realization of a doubled /x/.

3.6.1 Realization of /x/ in totally reduplicated verbs

In (16a) below, /x/ is followed by a fricative or /A/ whereas in (16b) it is

followed by a stop or a sonorant. In all cases, the stop allophone [k] obtains. The
main difference between the verbs discussed so far and the ones in (16) is the
fact that the latter are totally reduplicated verbs. Total reduplication is not
evident in verbs such as k6kGr, from (16b), but this is due to a deletion of the
antepenult /r/ in both the Imperative and Perfective of such verbs. See §2.3.4 for
an analysis that derives C1C1C2 from C1C2C1C2.
(16) Strengthening of /x/ in totally reduplicated verbs
a. When /x/ is followed by fricative/A
k6skGs ‘Smash sth!’
a-]-kaka ‘Cackle!’
kaka ‘Dry totally!’
a-]-k6skGs ‘Warm (e.g. butter)!’
ky6ky(G)f ‘Sprinkle!’
b. Elsewhere
k6tkGt ‘Crush sth up!’
a-]-kw6tkwGt ‘Remove weeds!’
k6kGm ‘Trim!’
a-]-kw6rkwGr ‘Make lump!’
k6kGr ‘Hold sth in the armpit!’
c. Exceptions
m6xmGx ‘mash’
sGx6s6x ‘has ground sth slightly’
xwGr6xw6r ‘has penetrated’
s6sGx ‘Grind sth slightly!’
xw6rxwGr ‘Penetrate!’
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 111

Strengthening in (16a) may be due to the fricative/A that follows /x/. But /x/ in
(16b) is not followed by a fricative/A. Therefore, its strengthening can be due
only to doubling.
C1C2C1C2 verbs like k6tkGt in (16b) often express repetitive or intensified
actions. So, it may be possible to decompose them into a base and a reduplicant.
This is why such verbs are often analyzed as deriving from biradicals. Yet, its
unreduplicated form *k6t or *kGt does not exist. It is therefore difficult to say
which half is the base and which half is the reduplicant. In addition, its four
consonants are considered as a group of distinct consonants. For instance, 6 and
G in g6rdGm ‘cut in two!’ are inserted respectively before the antepenultimate and
final radicals. This same rule applies in k6tkGt. So each consonant in grdm and
ktkt is treated as a distinct radical. In other words, the internal structure of the
base and reduplicant is irrelevant since it is analyzed as –xtxt. In this account, the
verbs k6skGs and k6tkGt can be represented as follows:
(17) a. C 6 C C G C
| | | |
x s x s
[+] [+] [+] [+]
[Dorsal] [Dorsal]
k6skGs ‘Smash sth!’
b. C 6 C C G C
| | | |
x t x t
[+] [−] [+] [−]
[Dorsal] [Dorsal]
k6tkGt ‘Crush sth up!’
Each /x/ in (17a) is followed by the [+] radical /s/. Here, if /x/ surfaces as
[x] it will violate No Precontinuant [x], (5). This is why strengthening of both
segments takes place in k6skGs. On the other hand, in (17b), only the first /x/ is
followed by [+], as /t/ is [−]. But an intervening /t/ does not count
(see §3.3.3), so [−] in it can be considered nonexistent (see §3.8). So (5)
wrongly predicts *k6txGt, a form which alters the identity of the first allophone
only (and not the attested k6tkGt). To account for this overapplication of strength-
ening, I assume that Chaha has another constraint (18) prohibiting [x] and [k] in
the same stem. (See Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999 for viewing this constraint
as base-reduplicant identity.)
(18) No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem
112 SOUND MUTATIONS

So, (18) rules out the derivation of *k6txGt from (17b). In addition, x6txGt is ruled
out by No Precontinuant [x], (5), since the first [x] is precontinuant. The attested
output k6tkGt violates neither (18) nor No Precontinuant [x] but it alters the
underlying [+] of /x/ twice.
Nouns exhibiting total reduplication also have a strengthened /x/ regardless
of the absence of a following [+] radical, i.e. k6rk6r-t ‘dissimulation’ and
kwGckwGc-6r ‘a type of dish (from mashed 6s6t-root)’ and they are analyzed
likewise (see §7.2.5 for discussions of the labialization and palatalization of the
last word). In addition, strengthening in kw6rkwGm ‘give a blow with the knuck-
les!’ shows that what plays a decisive role in strengthening is not the fact that
there is total reduplication but that there are two instances of /x/ in the stem.
Both /x/’s remain spirant in the exceptions of (16c) (see Chapter 7 for the
deletion of the first /x/ in the Imperative /s6xsGx/ → [s6sGx]). The spirant in (16c)
is unexpected in my analysis as the first [x] violates No Precontinuant [x], (5).
The same is true of the noun xGtxGta ‘kind of tree’ in which a doubled /x/ is not
strengthened. But in both words [x] retains its underlying [+] and the
constraint No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18), is respected.

3.6.2 Doubled final /x/

All /x/’s linked to a stem-final CiVCi(V)# are strengthened, as in (19). As noted

in McCarthy (1986a: 222), words of the surface form C1(C2)6x6x(a)# are
unattested.
(19) Realization of a doubled final /x/
sGkGk ‘Drive a peg!’
a-f wkGk ‘Squat!’
6kGk ‘Scratch!’
y6-mwakGk-x6 ‘Let it be unpleasant for you!’
t6-m6rk6k ‘Kneel down!’
bw6k6k b6r ‘Talk a lot!’
m6-sk6k ‘peg’
f w6k6k-ar ‘strong fight’
6ky6ky-(w ) ‘feeling of sickness’
mwGkGka ‘kernel of 6s6t-root’
mwGkyGkya ‘kind of grass’
b 6k6k-(t)
w
‘too much talk’
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 113

Even though a verb like sGkGk in (19) may be analyzed as deriving from the biradical
–sx such roots never surface unaugmented. There is no verb form *sGk or *sGx. In
addition, there is no phonologically (segment or position) or semantically identifiable
affix in sGkGk. I assume, then, that the two /x/’s in sGkGk belong to the same mor-
pheme and reside on the same tier. In addition, the two /x/ are copies, not a
doubly linked /x/, as in (20): (See Gafos 1996 and Rose 1997 for arguments.)
(20) C G C G C
| | |
s x x
[+] [+] [+]
[Dorsal] [Dorsal]
sGkGk ‘Drive a peg!’
The [+] of the first /x/ is followed by the [+] of the second /x/. So the
first /x/ cannot be a spirant since that violates No Precontinuant [x]. Accordingly,
it loses its [+]. In addition, No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18),
rules out forms such as *sGkGx. The remaining option, which is adopted in Chaha,
is to strengthen the final /x/ as well.

3.6.3 Doubled medial /x/: the frequentative

The /x/ in (21) is a reduplicated medial radical. In contrast with the –xt of k6tkGt,
(17b), and the –sx of sGkGk, (20), the roots in (21) can surface without reduplica-
tion, cf. sGx6r ‘get drunk!’ and nGk(G)s ‘bite!’ In the reduplicated forms, /x/
remains [x] if it is followed by a stop or a sonorant, as in the Imperative of
(21a), whereas it strengthens to [k] if it is followed by a fricative or /A/, as in
the Imperative of (21b):
(21) Realization of a reduplicated medial /x/
Imperative Imperfective Perfective
a. t6-sxax6r yG-t-sGkak6r t6-skak6r ‘act naughtily’ (freq.
reflexive)
t6-mxax6r yG-tG-mkak6r t6-mkak6r ‘advise each other’ (freq.
reflexive)
t6-rx6x6ö yG-tG-rk6k6ö t6-rk6k6ö ‘show up’ (freq. reflexive)
b. nGk6k(G)s yG-rk6k(G)s nGk6k6s ‘bite here and there’ (freq.)
tGk6k(G)s yG-tk6k(G)s tGk6k6s ‘burn slightly’ (freq.)
t6-rkak6f yG-tG-rkak6f t6-rkak6f ‘instigate a quarrel’ (freq.
reflexive)
a-fkaka y-a-fkaka a-fkaka ‘be about to vanish’ (freq.
causative)
114 SOUND MUTATIONS

It is stated right from the start that No Precontinuant [x] holds at the root level.
We also assume that t6-sxax6r, in (22a), and nGk6k(G)s, in (22b), are derived from
–sxr and –rxs respectively. Hence, it follows that the copied phoneme of the
frequentative infix is on its own tier, as in (22):
(22) [Dorsal]
[+]
x
|
a. t6 – C – Ca – C 6 C
| | |
s x r
[+] [+] []
[Dorsal]
t6-sxax6r ‘Act naughtily!’
[Dorsal]
[+]
x
|
b. CG– C6 – C (G) C
| | |
r x s
[] [+] [+]
[Dorsal]
nGk6k(G)s ‘Bite here and there!’
The [+] of /x/ in (22a) is not followed by [+]. If /x/ remains [x], this [x]
does not violate No Precontinuant [x]. In (22b), however, the [+] of /x/ is
followed by the [+] of /s/, and if the [+] of /x/ does not delink the
spirant will violate No Precontinuant [x]. So the offending [+] delinks,
which results in a stop. In addition, No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18),
dictates that the copied segment of the infix must agree in continuancy with the base.
Hence, both /x/’s must be [+] in (22a), for *t6-skax6r violates (18).
Similarly, none of the /x/’s can be [+] in (22b), for *nGx6k(G)s violates (18),
too. In an analysis that does not distinguish the phonologically motivated doubling
of /x/ in (17b) k6tkGt and (20) sGkGk from the morphologically motivated doubling of
/x/ in (22a) t6-sxax6r it will be difficult to explain the continuancy difference for
/x/ in the two class of words. The phonologically motivated doubling, as in (17)
and (20), requires the phonological templates and militates against theories (see
McCarthy and Prince’s 1995) claiming that languages such as Chaha are a-templatic.
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 115

The correctness of No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18), is also

shown by the Imperfective yG-t-sGkak6r and Perfective t6-skak6r, the first line of
(21a). For instance, the first [k] in t6-skak6r is a nongeminate and should be a
spirant as in the Imperative t6-sxax6r whereas the second one is a simplified
geminate and (as we will see next) should be a stop [k]. Yet, *t6-sxak6r does not
obtain. When the /x/ of the base is strengthened the copy must also be strengthened.
The strengthening difference between words such as k6tkGt ‘crush sth up!’
(17b), and sGkGk, (20), on the one hand and t6-sxax6r, (22a), on the other forces
us to distinguish phonological from morphological doubling. Notably, as argued
in Prunet and Petros (1996), doubling in the first two is motivated by the need
to fill positions made available by the phonology. On the other hand, phonology
does not require that sGx6r double its medial radical to form t6-sxax6r. So
doubling here is morphologically motivated. In my account, this is expressed by
placing the phonologically motivated copies on the same tier as the base and the
morphologically motivated copies on a different tier from the base. It is also
shown that the phonological constraint No Precontinuant [x] makes reference to
such a distinction.
The distinction between phonological and morphological reduplication is
also seen with respect to the insertion sites of 6 and G, as in g6rdGm ‘cut in two!’
For example, the four consonants of phonologically motivated reduplication, such
as k6tkGt, are treated as four distinct radicals (cf. g6rdGm) as they employ the
C6CCGC Imperative template of quadriradicals. However, the four consonants (nkks)
of morphologically motivated reduplication are not treated as four distinct radicals
since they do not employ the C6CCGC in their Imperative: nGk6k(G)s (not *n6kkGs).

3.7 Realization of a geminated /x/

3.7.1 Penultimate geminates in verbs

A penultimate /x/ strengthens in the Perfective, e.g. m6k6r ‘has advised’, (to be
compared with y6-mxGr ‘let him advise!’ and yG-m6xGr ‘he advises’, (2a). Accord-
ing to this book, all Perfective verbs of Chaha have a geminate penult as in
/m6xx6r/.13 In addition, degemination applies to all true geminates and simpli-
fies /xx/ to [k], resulting in [m6k6r]. Note that /x/ is the only obstruent to be
strengthened. It is also the only [+, Dorsal]. The strengthening can be

13. Exceptionally, /x/ is not strengthened in a-t6x6r ‘has been naughty’. This may be, to paraphrase
Leslau (1992: 617, note 41), because it is back-formed from ataxari ‘naughty’, where /x/ is simple.
116 SOUND MUTATIONS

attributed to a constraint prohibiting a geminated [x], i.e. [+, Dorsal], given

in (23). (As was the case for No Precontinuant [x], No Geminate [x] in (23) is
a constraint that holds for all continuant velars, so it should be seen as a
simplified name of No Geminate Continuant Velar.)
(23) No Geminate [x]
*C C

[+cont]
[Dorsal]
Due to No Geminate [x] the feature specification [+] delinks from a
structure like (23). This turns all /xx/’s to [k], i.e. a geminate /xx/ strengthens
and degeminates.
No Geminate [x] is distinct from No Precontinuant [x], (5), and No
Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18), because there are no two allophones
of /x/ in (23). One may think that m6k6r obtains because *m6kx6r is excluded
due to No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem. However, this constraint does
not prohibit the derivation of *m6xx6r (if the two /x/’s are on different tiers, as
in (22)) which would simplify to the unattested *m6x6r. In addition, we need the
double-linking, as in (23), for degemination to apply. Double-linking for true
geminates is also independently required as in geminate devoicing (Chapter 2)
and geminate nasalization (Chapter 4).

3.7.2 Special final geminates in participles

In the following participial stems, which are used to form composite verbs (see
Banksira 1999 for detailed discussion), the final /x/ is a geminate. Moreover, the
geminate is not simplified, except optionally in f6t6k(k).
(24) Special final geminates involving /x/
cGkk ‘been rigid’
f6t6k(k) ‘gotten up suddenly’
n6kk ‘strolled’
wGkwkw ‘sat down for a moment’
t6kk ‘trickled in drops’
I assume that degemination does not apply in these participles because the
geminates are derived by total reduplication, cGkcGk → cGkk. In this account, the
strengthening will parallel that of k6tkGt, (17b). The analysis of these special
geminates is mainly supported by the absence of devoicing and degemination in
parallel verbs with a voiced geminate such as g6bb ‘calmed’, discussed in §2.6.
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 117

3.8 Strengthening and underspecification

3.8.1 [CONT] in obstruents

The stems k6t6f and k6ta, (25a, b) reproduced below from (9), both have an
underlying initial /x/, a medial /t/ and either a final fricative or /A/. (The [t] here
is not a devoiced and simplified /dd/ since it does not alternate with [d] in the
Imperfective and Jussive, it is a simplified /tt/.) The question here is whether /t/
(or any other obstruent stop) is underlyingly [−]. Does the UR contain both
marked and unmarked values or only the marked value(s) of segments? If we
assume that it contains both values, the stricture value of the radicals in k6t6f and
k6ta will be as follows:
(25) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. C 6 C C 6 C

x t f x t A
[+] [–] [+] [+] [–] [+]
k6t6f ‘has hashed’ k6ta ‘has worried’
In (25a, b), the [+] of /x/ is immediately followed by [−] of /t/. This
entails that the initial [+] and the final [+] are not adjacent. In
principle, phonological processes are local and they imply A and B, not A, B and
C (see Odden 1994 and the references therein on locality condition). If this is
correct, it follows that the intervening /t/ is considered nonexistent because, if it
were not, the structural description for No Precontinuant [x] would not be met,
as [−] would intervene. The forms *x6t6f and *x6ta would be incorrectly
predicted. But assume now that the unmarked feature value [−] of /t/ is
absent, as in (26a, b).
(26) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. C 6 C C 6 C

x t f x t A
[+] [] [+] [+] [] [+]
k6t6f ‘has hashed’ k6ta ‘has worried’
Only now are the [+] of /x/ and the [+] of the third radical adjacent,
which entails a violation of No Precontinuant [x]. Strengthening takes place to
avoid a violation of this constraint. The forms k6t6f and k6ta are correctly
predicted. This argument supports the view that unmarked feature values are
absent in UR and during (at least part of) the phonology.
118 SOUND MUTATIONS

3.8.2 [CONT] in sonorants

Setting the dual nature of /A/ aside, we have seen that continuant sonorants (or
approximants) do not function like continuant obstruents. In contrast to fricatives,
high vocoids do not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/. For instance, a verb
such as sGç ‘flee!’ is derived from the triradical –sxI ‘to flee’ but the /x/ is not
strengthened. Similarly, /x/ in sGx6r ‘get drunk!’ is not strengthened regardless of
the presence of a [+] final radical /r/. This shows that even though /I/ and
/r/ are [+] they do not function as such phonologically. If we assume that
the UR contains both marked and unmarked values, the stricture value of sGç and
sGx6r will be as follows:
(27) a. C G C 6 C
| | |
s x I
[+] [+] [+]
sGç ‘Flee!’
b. C G C 6 C
| | |
s x r
[+] [+] [+]
sGx6r ‘Get drunk!’
Given the [+] of /I/ in (27a) and of /r/ in (27b), No Precontinuant [x]
predicts that /x/ in (27) should not retain its [+]. This incorrectly predicts
*sGky and *sGk6r. But assume again that [+] is the unmarked stricture feature
value in sonorants and is consequently unspecified, as shown in (28):
(28) a. C G C C
| | |
s x I
[+] [+] []
sGç ‘Flee!’
b. C G C 6 C
| | |
s x r
[+] [+] []
sGx6r ‘Get drunk!’
Given that continuant sonorants are [] (i.e. unspecified) for continuancy — and
not [+] — the [+] of /x/ in sGç and sGx6r is not followed by [+]
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 119

on the [] tier. Accordingly, No Precontinuant [x] cannot rule out [x] in
these forms since [x] here is not precontinuant. This accounts for why continuant
sonorants do not trigger strengthening of /x/. In such an account, [+] will
be absent in sonorants, as is [−] in obstruents. Thus, the stricture features
of radicals can be represented as follows:
(29) Underlying stricture specifications
a. Obstruents ([−]) Fricatives/A Stops
C C
| |
[+] []
b. Sonorants ([+]) Continuant Noncontinuant
sonorants sonorants
C C
| |
[] [−]
According to (29), [] represents the unmarked feature values [−] in
obstruents and [+] in sonorants. In other words, [] in obstruents means the
absence of [+] whereas [] in sonorants mean the absence of [−].
The claim that noncontinuant sonorants are [−] predicts that an /m/
(Chaha has no /n/ in stems) which intervenes between /x/ and a following
[+] radical should block the strengthening of /x/. For instance, [x] in the
hypothetical word x6m6s, (30), is pre [−] and does not violate No Preconti-
nuant [x].
(30) C 6 C C 6 C

x m s
[+] [–] [+]
x6m6s (hypothetical)
So my analysis predicts x6m6s and not k6m6s. But I have not been able to find
verbs which can confirm or invalidate this prediction. I have found only the
pronouns axma ‘you (pl.f.)’ and xGn6ma ‘they (f.)’ as well as the complementizer
x6ma ‘that’. In all three cases, /x/ remains a spirant in spite of the final [a], and
this confirms the prediction. On the other hand, given my assumption that
[−] in obstruents is unspecified, my analysis predicts that strengthening
should apply irrespective of an intervening obstruent stop, as in (26). The only
counterexamples that I found are x6da ‘has betrayed’ and x6t’a ‘flatterer’.
120 SOUND MUTATIONS

3.8.3 The sonorant nature of /ö/ with respect to [CONT]

The distribution of x and k indicates that ö is not [+]. In (31a), /x/ remains
a spirant before a final ö. But in (31b), the final radical is [+], which
triggers the strengthening of /x/.
(31) A following /ö/ vs. a [+] obstruent and the strengthening of /x/
a. y6-]x6ö ‘Let him find!’
yG-xöGö ‘Let him encircle!’
yG-xtGö ‘Let him vaccinate!’
b. y6-]kGs ‘Let him bite!’
y6-k6sGs ‘Let him accuse!’
y6-ktGf ‘Let him hash!’
The fact that ö, unlike [+] obstruents, does not trigger strengthening of a
preceding x shows that it is not a [+] obstruent and that it patterns with
sonorants.
Recall that /ö/ occlusivizes to an obstruent [b] in absolute word-initial
position (and when it is doubly linked but not devoiced, see Chapter 5 for a
discussion of occlusivization). As a sonorant, /ö/ is not [−] and cannot have
this specification. In addition, its obstruent allophones [b, p] are not [+] and
cannot have this specification. So, /ö/ is neither a [−] sonorant nor a
[+] obstruent, it is unspecified for continuant, so [].
When the [+] phoneme /ö/ becomes [−] [b] (by being initial or
doubly linked), it does not change its specification for continuancy (it remains
[]). in addition, according to the definition in (29), [] continuant in obstruents is
a stop. So, as an obstruent, /ö/ can only be a stop and this explains why it is in (32a).
(32) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. a-C 6 C C 6 C

ö s A ö s A
[] [+] [+] [] [+] [+]
b6sa ‘has enlarged (intr.)’ a-ö6sa ‘has enlarged (tr.)’
On the other hand, /ö/ in (32b) is medial and singly linked, so it is [+].
Again, according to (29b), [] continuant in sonorants means a continuant
sonorant. This explains why /ö/ in (32b) is an approximant. In this account, the
UR of /ö/ should not contain specification for continuancy because specifying an
obstruent stop as [−] and a continuant sonorant as [+] cannot capture
the phonological inertness of [+] in sonorants and that of [−] in ob-
struents.
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 121

3.8.4 Following vs. preceding [+CONT]

Finally, consider the verbs nGk(G)s ‘bite!’, (33a), and sGx6r ‘get drunk!’, (33b).
Both stems have the same type and number of consonants. The only difference
concerning their consonants is the order of their initial and final radicals. /x/ is
followed by a fricative in nGk(G)s whereas it is followed by a sonorant in sGx6r.
(33) a. C G C (G) C
| | |
r x s
[] [+] [+]
nGk(G)s ‘Bite!’
b. C G C 6 C
| | |
s x r
[+] [+] []
sGx6r ‘Get drunk!’
While /x/ is followed by [+] in (33a) it is preceded by it in (33b). What
follows /x/ in (33b) is /r/, which according to (29) has no continuancy specifica-
tion. So, [+] of /x/ is precontinuant in (33a), which is forbidden by No
Precontinuant [x]. This explains why we obtain [k]. But [+] of /x/ is
postcontinuant in (33b), a situation about which No Precontinuant [x] says
nothing at all. This explains why /x/ simply surfaces as [x].
Based on the absence of [x] in y6-]kGs and its presence in y6-sx6r, Leslau
(1992: 619) states that: “[t]here is no consistency in the Jussive of verbs with 2nd
radical velar.” However, the examples he cites fall under three categories. The
first are verbs with a final fricative where, in my analysis, /x/ strengthens
because it is precontinuant, e.g. y6-]kGs. The second are verbs with a final
nonfricative where /x/ remains a spirant because, in my analysis, it is not
precontinuant, e.g. y6-mxGr. The third are verbs with a doubled /x/ such as y6-
skGk, discussed in §3.6, where /x/, in my analysis, strengthens because it is
doubled. I have argued in §3.6 that this also is a subset of No Precontinuant [x].
The explanation offered for the difference between y6-]kGs and y6-mxGr, i.e.
the fact that /x/ is precontinuant only in the former, accounts also for the
precontinuant [k] in nouns such as nGkGf w ‘defile’ and m6-]k6s ‘stomach-ache’ as
well as for the postcontinuant [x] in nouns such as f6xGr ‘mischief’, s6x6r ‘kind
of beer’, w6xr-a ‘clay’, Š6xw6r6 ‘elephant’ and ax6d ‘comrade’. But I have no
account as to why /x/ remains a spirant in m6x6za ‘first shot’ in spite of the
following continuant radical.
122 SOUND MUTATIONS

3.9 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have shown that [x] and [k] derive from the same phoneme /x/.
I described the distribution of the two allophones and argued that it does not
have anything to do with the position of /x/ in the syllable. Rather, it depends on
the continuancy specification of radicals following /x/. If /x/ is followed by a
[+] obstruent ([+] is assumed to be unspecified in sonorants) the
[+] of /x/ delinks. Furthermore, I assumed that when a segment lacks a
marked feature value it means that it has the unmarked value by default. The
value [+] is marked in obstruents, and its absence in an obstruent entails the
presence of the unmarked value [−]. So, delinking [+] from /x/ results
in the stop allophone [k]. I cited some examples suggesting that nasal stops, in
contrast to oral stops, are [−]. I have attributed this to the assumption that
[−] is the marked stricture value in sonorants.
The delinking is a direct consequence of either of the constraints No
Precontinuant [x] (which takes care of a /x/ preceding a fricative or /A/) or No
Geminate [x] (which takes care of a geminated /x/). In conjunction with either of
these two, No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem results in eliminating (i.e.
strengthening) an otherwise acceptable [x], as in y6-skGk or yG-t-sGkak6r, where the
underscored k is neither precontinuant nor geminate. Leaving the handful of
exceptions aside (which, of course, are unpredictable in any previous analysis),
the three constraints account for all instances of [x] and [k] in Chaha without any
appeal to syllabic configurations. The constraints are seen as applying on
[+, Dorsal] but /x/ is the only such segment of Chaha.
I concluded that, in general, /A/ functions like a fricative even though there
are a few instances of a radical [a] which functions like a sonorant in not
triggering the delinking of [+] from a preceding /x/. I suggested to account
for this by postulating an abstract phoneme /æ/ but the implications of this
analysis await future research.
I distinguished a phonologically motivated reduplication (k6tkGt and sGkGk)
from a morphologically motivated one (t6-sxax6r), a distinction which is mani-
fested in both form and meaning. I attributed the differences to the proposal that
the base and reduplicant of a phonologically motivated reduplication reside on
the same tier while that of a morphologically motivated reduplication reside on
different tiers. This distinction is supported by arguments from /x/ strengthening
and the insertion site of aspectual and epenthetic vowels within the base.
In the next chapter, we will discuss the distribution of placeless sonorant
consonants (mainly n/r). We will see that, in contrast to obstruent (x/k) alterna-
tions, sonorant alternations are governed by syllabic considerations and not by
 ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K] 123

the continuancy specification of surrounding radicals. So, constraints of the type

No Precontinuant [r] and No Different Allophones of /r/ in a Stem do not hold
because, in my view, the distribution of r/n is mostly determined at the level of
the skeleton/syllable and not at the phonemic (specifically continuant) tier.
 C 4

Sonorant Alternations

4.1 Introduction

This chapter (which expands Petros 1996b with minor modifications) investigates
the distribution of n, l and r in Chaha and accounts for the alternations among
them. Following Polotsky (1938: 140–3), Leslau (1950: 13), Hetzron (1977: 40),
McCarthy (1986a: 220), Petros (1995: 431) and others, it will be argued that the
contrast between n, l and r is neutralized and that they are in complementary
distribution in contemporary Chaha verb stems. They are represented by a single
placeless sonorant phoneme /r/ (analyzed as a sonorant archiphoneme /R/ in Petros
1996b), which is also unspecified for laterality and nasality. The r has mainly two
realizations [r] and [n] but also [l] when geminated across a morpheme boundary.
It will be shown that there are some instances of liquid-nasal minimal pairs
in nouns and that there are reasons to believe that the contrast in some of them
is a simple r vs. geminated rr. Even though it is not a priori impossible to derive
all instances of n’s found in nouns from an r (as this will be the case in verb
stems) this will require postulating a phoneme r which always surfaces as n. In
addition, no liquid is found in prefixes, i.e. a prefixal nasal does not alternate
with a liquid. Due to the presence of such nonalternating nasals, it will be
suggested that two independent phonemes (nasal /N/ and liquid /r/) should be
recognized in nouns and affixes.
The chapter is organized as follows. In §4.2 the description and account of
the main alternations in stems is laid out, and three types of r-nasalization
(geminate, initial and penultimate coda) are proposed. The interaction of
penultimate coda nasalization with epenthesis, the radical A and complex
consonants is discussed in §4.3, the role of doubling on nasalization in §4.4,
nasal dissimilation in §4.5, counterexamples related with borrowing in §4.6 and
alternations of r and front vowels in §4.7. Some problematic cases (r/n contrasts
in nouns) are discussed in §4.8. Sonorant alternations in affixes and why they
differ from stems is dealt with in §4.9. Finally, §4.10 concludes the chapter.
126 SOUND MUTATIONS

4.2 Stems

4.2.1 Geminate nasalization and degemination

Representative examples of transitive r-medial triradical verbs are given in (1).

The penult of these verbs is an underlying simple consonant in the Jussive and
Imperfective similar to y6-söGr ‘let him break’ and yG-s6öGr ‘he breaks’. On the
other hand, the penult is an underlying geminate in the Perfective similar to
m6k6r ‘has suppurated’, from –mgr, discussed in Chapter 2, and m6k6r ‘has
advised’, from –mxr discussed in Chapter 3. While a geminate obstruent either
devoices or strengthens, a geminated r nasalizes. The devoiced, strengthened and
nasalized geminates simplify, so /rr/ becomes [n] in the Perfective verbs of (1).1
(1) Jussive Imperfective Perfective
a. y6-öGrt’ yG-ö6rt’ b6nt’ ‘become wise’
b. y6-fGrt yG-f6rt f6nt ‘cut in half’
c. y6-fGrd yG-f6rd f6nd ‘judge’
d. y6-t’Grs yG-t’6rs t’6n6s ‘break off a little piece’
e. y-a-gGrz y-a-g6rz a-g6n6z ‘age’
f. y6-grGr yG-g6rGr g6n6r ‘extract butter’
g. y6-t’Grk’ yG-t’6rk’ t’6n6k’ ‘scoop out’
h. y6-dGrg yG-d6rg d6n6g ‘hit’
i. y6-tGrx yG-t6rx t6n6x ‘make an incision’
j. y6-k’Grf yG-k’6rf k’6n6f ‘strike  down’
k. y6-srGö yG-s6rGö s6n6ö ‘spin, twist a rope’
l. y6-k’rGm yG-k’6rGm k’6n6m ‘insult’
m. y6-öra yG-ö6ra b6na ‘eat’
In (1a–f), the final consonants are coronals. All the coronals except r, (1f), form
a cluster with a preceding r (see Leslau 1964 for similar generalizations). In
(1g–i), the final consonants are velars. All velars form a cluster with a preceding
r. In (1j–l) the final consonants are labials, of which only the labio-dental f, (1j),
forms a cluster with a preceding r, in the Jussive and Imperfective. Note that ö
acts like the nasal m and not like the fricative f in not forming a cluster with a
preceding r. In general, r can be the first member of a word-final cluster when

1. The 6 found between the penult and the final radical of Perfective verbs, e.g. b6n6s ‘has
demolished’, is absent when the penult is n and the last radical is a coronal stop, e.g. b6nt’ ‘has
become wise’ (see also Leslau 1992: 360).
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 127

the second member is any consonant except r, ö and m. According to §1.3.1, ö

in Chaha is a sonorant. Hence, it can be stated that r cannot be the first member
of a final cluster if the second member is a sonorant.2
The contrast between the Jussive and the Imperfective on the one hand and
the Perfective on the other is of the absence of gemination in the former and its
presence in the latter. Geminate Nasalization and Degemination (), shown in
(2), turns the doubly linked r, of the Perfective, into a simple n. (See §5.3.2 for
a formal representation of Geminate Nasalization and Degemination.)
(2) Geminate Nasalization and Degemination
C C

r n
The r in the following quadriradical verbs nasalizes and degeminates in both the
Imperfective and Perfective, also due to :3
(3) Quadriradicals with a penultimate r
Jussive Imperfective Perfective
a. I-second quadriradicals
y-a-ö6nGr y-a-öenGr a-öen6r ‘yawn’
y-a-t’6nz y-a-c’6nz a-c’6n6z ‘crouch’
y6-f6nk’ yG-fenk’ fen6k’ ‘burp’
y6-g6nGm yG-gy6nGm gy6n6m ‘take back the loan of a cow’
y6-g6nGz yG-gy6nGz gy6n6z ‘cut in a big slice’
y6-t’6nf yG-c’6nf c’6n6f ‘slash’
y6-z6nGr yG-Š6nGr Š6n6r ‘curtain’

2. Leslau (1964: 55) has also reported y-6rö ‘milk’, y6-t’Grö ‘tear off (e.g. leaves)’, y-6rm ‘weed’, y6-
fGrm ‘break’ and y6-k’Grm ‘insult’ as possible forms. (See also Hayward 1988: 143 for y6-fGrm)
However, such clusters are possible only in medial positions, i.e. when ö or m is the onset of a
syllable containing a vowel, e.g. y-6rö-o ‘let them () milk!’ and y-6rm-o ‘let them () weed!’
According to Berhanu Chamora and me, there is no final rö or rm. The above forms should
respectively be y-6rGö, y6-t’rGö, y-6rGm, y6-frGm and y6-k’rGm.
3. A nasalized r normally assimilates in place with the following obstruent, e.g. yG-r6gs ‘he reigns
vs. y6-]g6s and yG-r6öGr ‘he lives’ vs. y6-mb6r ‘let him live!’ However, the geminate n of (3) does not
assimilate in place with the following obstruent. This may be because a geminate penult is followed
by [G], (i.e. …CCGC#) as in yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’, which deletes only after degemination.
128 SOUND MUTATIONS

b. A-second quadriradicals4
y6-öarGr yG-öanGr ban6r ‘demolish’
y6-k’yars yG-k’yans k’yan6s ‘attack with words’
y6-marx yG-manx man6x ‘capture’
y6-Šarg yG-Šang Šan6g ‘go away’
c. U-second quadriradicals
y6-k’w6rGr yG-k’w6nGr k’w6n6r ‘trim’
y6-w6rs yG-w6nGs bw6n6s ‘feel lonely’
As just mentioned, quadriradicals geminate their penultimate consonant in the
Imperfective, e.g. yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’, and Perfective, e.g. sGr6p6t6-m ‘he has
sojourned’, from –sröt, where the devoicing of ö replaces gemination. Accord-
ingly, a penultimate r nasalizes and degeminates in both the Imperfective and
Perfective of quadriradicals, (3a–c). Nasalization is peculiar to r whereas
degemination is common to all morpheme-internal geminates. A penultimate r
nasalizes and degeminates also in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals, (3a),
traditionally called type B. It is argued, in §2.2.7 and Appendix 2a, that gemina-
tion in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals occurs to compensate for the
depalatalization. The same explanation holds for gemination in the Jussive of
I-second quadriradicals shown in (3a). r does not nasalize in the Jussive if there
is no depalatalization, e.g. y6-t’6nf ‘let him slash!’ vs. its frequentative y6-c’r6rf
‘let him slash repeatedly!’ indicating that  is not a historical but a contempo-
rary process.

4.2.2 Initial nasalization

The phoneme r becomes n when it is at the beginning of a word.5 (See Ahn

1998 for a comparable nasalization in Korean.) The difference between the
Simple and other stems in (4) exemplifies Initial Nasalization (), (5). In the
other contexts, r surfaces as r, be it after a vowel or any consonant different
from itself (or a prefix /N-/ which triggers the nasalization of the r).
(4) Simple Reflexive Causative Reflexive Causative
nak’ t6-rak’ a-r6k’ at-r6k’ ‘grow’

4. In Petros (1996b: 155), y6-öarGr, y6-k’yars, y6-marx and y6-w6rs are misprinted respectively as y6-
banGr, y6-k’yar(G)s, y6-mar(G)x and y6-w6r(G)s.
5. However, see Ford (1991: 245, note 5) for an opinion that r can optionally become n also word-
medially. She cites examples such as y6-neöa ‘of a thief’ and y6-nesa ‘of a corpse’, forms which I do
not accept or say. I only say y6-reöa and y6-resa.
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 129

nas t6-ras a-r6s at-r6s ‘lick’

nGk’6k’6t’ t6-rk’ak’6t’ a-rk’ak’6t’ atG-rk’ak’6t’ ‘kick’
nGt’6n6t’ t6-rt’6n6t’ a-rt’6n6t’ atG-rt’6n6t’ ‘oscillate’
n6k6ö t6-r6k6ö a-rak6ö at-r6k6ö ‘find’
(5) Initial Nasalization
#C
|
r →n
Initial Nasalization is exceptionless: no word begins with r or l. Polotsky’s
(1938: 141) exceptions: 6r6ky6-m ‘has thrown’, 6ram ‘cow’, 6r7 ‘cattle’, 6r6k’w-e
‘far’ and 6ro ‘Wednesday’ begin with the vowel 6. I am not familiar with his
räg’g’ā ‘property’. Leslau’s (1985: 238) exception lux/rux ‘soul’ is, according to
me, nux.

4.2.3 Penultimate coda nasalization (PCN)

The nasal in (6) is not a geminate and therefore is not the result of . It is not
word-initial and cannot result from  either. Yet, r is nasalized, showing that
 and  are not the only types of nasalization. A simplex noninitial r is
nasalized if it is the coda of the penultimate syllable of the stem (i.e. when the
antepenultimate radical r is the first member of a consonant cluster).6
(6) a. Jussive of triradicals
y6-Xf6s/y6̃-f6s ‘Let it wind!’
y6-nz6ö/y6̃-z6ö ‘Let it be flexible!’
y6-]k’Gt’ ‘Let him kick!’
b. Jussive of quadriradicals
y6-s6mbGt ‘Let him sojourn!’
y6-k’w6nt’Gs ‘Let him pinch!’
y6-d6]gGr ‘Let him throw down!’
c. Infinitives
w6-s6mbGt ‘to sojourn’

6. In theories where every syllable (in Semitic) is CV (Guerssel and Lowenstamm 1995 and
Lowenstamm 1996a), a penultimate coda may be seen as an antepenultimate radical followed by an
empty nucleus. Since the syllable-types of Chaha are not at issue here, I will not argue for or against
whether []] in words such as y6-]k’Gt’ ‘let him kick!’ from (6a) is a coda of the first syllable or an
onset of an empty nucleus. However, I use the term ‘coda’ because it is simpler than ‘onset of an
empty nucleus’.
130 SOUND MUTATIONS

w6-k’w6nt’Gs ‘to pinch’

w6-d6]gGr ‘to throw down’
d. Nouns
s6mb6t ‘Sabbath’
fGnt’Gr ‘cheer’
dG]gar ‘miscarriage’
Leslau (1985: 236) points out that nasalization occurs in the Jussive of verbs
beginning with n, i.e. the examples given in (6a). The examples given in (6b)
demonstrate that nasalization occurs also in the Jussive of quadriradicals, where
r is not at the beginning of a stem. Furthermore, nasalization occurs in infinitives
(6c) and nouns (6d), so is not characteristic of the Jussive. What characterizes
nasalization in (6) is the fact that r is the antepenultimate radical consonant and
it is a coda (i.e. r is followed by a CVC# — making it a penultimate coda) and
nasalizes according to Penultimate Coda Nasalization ():
(7) Penultimate Coda Nasalization
C C V C#
|
r → N
The nasalized /r/ always takes the point of articulation of the following consonant.
Affixes have no effect on . For example, if we add the suffixes -o-n
‘ -me’ to a verb such as y6-k’Grt’ ‘let him despise!’ its syllable structure
changes and we obtain y6-k’Grt’-o-n ‘let them () despise me!’ Here, r cannot
nasalize even though it is followed by a CVC#, cf. *y6-k’Gnt’-o-n. Similarly, if
we add -6ma ‘ ’ to a verb such as y6-s6mbGt ‘let him sojourn!’ we obtain
y6-s6mbGt-6ma (not *y6-s6rbGt-6ma) ‘let them ( ) sojourn!’ even though r is
not the penultimate coda of the entire word. This shows that  scans only the
stem and does not take affixes into consideration.
There are two Jussive forms of fGc’6n6k’ ‘has crushed’: y6-fc’6rk’ or y6-
f6^c’Gk’ ‘let him crush!’ The r is a final coda in y6-fc’6rk’ and does not nasalize.
But r and c’ have metathesized in y6-f6^c’Gk’, which brings r into penultimate
coda position, resulting in its nasalization. Note that r nasalizes also in yG-fc’6nk’
‘he crushes!’ but the nasalization here is due to gemination, to be compared with
yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’.
In words such as y6-Xf6s/y6̃-f6s ‘let it wind!’ the nasal can delink from its
C slot and nasalize the preceding vowel if the consonant following the nasal is
a fricative. On the other hand, the nasal does not delink before ö. Instead, ö
strengthens to b, e.g. y6-mb6r ‘let him live’, and parallels the strengthening of U
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 131

to bw as in a-N-U6t’6A → ambw6t’a ‘he has not gone out’ (see Chapter 6). This
again supports the position that ö in Chaha is a sonorant and not an obstruent.
An r which is not subject to any of the three types of nasalization (GND, IN
or PCN) surfaces as r, a central approximant (IPA [p] but I use the usual regular
[r]). The contexts where r remains an approximant can be summarized as: (a) a
noninitial onset … CV, e.g. fGr6x ‘be patient!,’ (b) a final coda … C(C)#, e.g.
sGx6r ‘get drunk!’ or yG-f6rx ‘he is patient!’ and (c) a coda which precedes the
penultimate coda C … CCVC#, e.g. a-rgagGt’ ‘make sure!’ The realization of r
as an approximant is shown in the Jussive and Imperfective of the r-medial
triradical verbs of (1) and the Jussive of quadriradical verbs of (3b, c), where r
is neither geminated nor word-initial nor followed by CVC#, i.e. the elsewhere
realization of an r is an approximant. (Petros 1996b and Banksira 1997 treat the
r as a flap but recent phonetic experiments indicate that it is more like an
approximant than a flap, especially when it is in a coda position.)

4.3 Interaction of PCN with epenthesis, /A/ and complex consonants

4.3.1 Interaction of PCN with epenthetic [G]

An exhaustive list of clearly triradical and quadriradical Jussive verb stems

undergoing  is given in (8). The nasals in (8) are penultimate coda r, which
became n due to .
(8) a. Intransitive Triradicals
y6-]x6ö/y6̃-x6ö ‘Let him find!’
y6-nz6ö/y6̃-z6ö ‘Let him be flexible!’
y6-Xf6r/y6̃-f6r ‘Let it be very hot!’
y6-Xf6s/y6̃-f6s ‘Let it wind!’
y6-]g6s ‘Let him reign!’
y6-nt’6r ‘Let it melt!’
y6-mb6r ‘Let him live!’
b. Transitive Triradicals
y6-XfGg/y6̃-fGg ‘Let him be avaricious!’
y6-XfGk’/y6̃-fGk’ ‘Let him yank!’
y6-]gGd ‘Let him touch!’
132 SOUND MUTATIONS

y6-]k’Gf ‘Let him embrace!’7

y6-]k’Gr ‘Let him uproot!’
y6-]k’Gt’ ‘Let him kick!’
y6-nt’Gö ‘Let him profit!’
y6-nt’Gr ‘Let him separate!’
y6-nt’Gs ‘Let him sneeze!’
y6-ndGf ‘Let him sting!’
y6-ndGr ‘Let him incise!’
y6-]gGf ‘Let him lop off!’
y6-]k’Gm ‘Let him gather!’
y6-]k’Gs ‘Let him limp!’
y6-]kGs ‘Let him bite!’
y6-nt’Gf ‘Let him sift s6x6r-drink!’
y6-nt’Gk’ ‘Let him snatch away!’
c. Quadriradicals
y-a-ö6]kGs ‘Let him pretext!’
y6-d6]gGr ‘Let him throw!’
y6-f6]k’Gr ‘Let him lever!’
y6-k’w6nt’Gs ‘Let him pinch!’
y6-s6mbGt ‘Let him sojourn!’
y-a-f6]gGr ‘Let him uproot!’
y-a-x6mbGr ‘Let him take out from a pot!’
y6-f6nt’Gr ‘Let him prepare food!’
y6-k’w6nt’Gr ‘Let him take a little!’8
y6-t’6]k’wGr ‘Let him rip out!’
d. Exception9
y6-s6rk’Gt’ ‘Let him hide with secrecy!’
In (8d), my analysis predicts *y6-s6]k’Gt’ instead of y6-s6rk’Gt’ and I have no
explanation as to why r is not nasalized in this case.

7. It is not so clear whether []] in y6-]k’Gf is an antepenult since the root contains /I/ which appears
in the Imperfective, e.g. yG-\k’yGf ‘he embraces’ and Perfective, e.g. 6\k’y6f6-m ‘he has embraced’.
8. The verbs y6-k’w6nt’Gs ‘let him pinch!’, y6-k’w6nt’Gr ‘let him take a little!’ and y6-t’6]k’wGr ‘let him
rip out!’ are formed from quinquiradicals. But the /U/ here is weak — does not have a Root node and
does not map onto a C slot, as discussed in §2.3.3 and Chapter 7.
9. The absence of  in forms such as y6-f6rfGr ‘let it breed worms!’ and y6-t’6rk’Gk’ ‘let him scoop
out in large quantities!’ will be explained in §4.4. Forms such as y6-g6rdGm ‘let him break  in
two!’ are explained in §4.5. Note that these are not exceptions.
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 133

The r of (9) surfaces as r when it is not followed by CVC#, as in yG-r6g(G)d

‘he touches’ and yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’. But, here, it nasalizes because of the
.
(9) a. y6- C C V C
| | |
r g d
y6-]gGd ‘Let him touch!’
b. y6- C 6 C C V C
| | | |
s r ö t
y6-s6mbGt ‘Let him sojourn!’
Transitive triradicals of Chaha have been assumed to have the Jussive pattern
y6-CCGC or y6-CGCC, depending on the relative sonority of the last two conso-
nants (e.g. Leslau 1964: 54, Hayward 1988: 161 and McCarthy and Prince
1995: 331). But note that the last two consonants of y6-dGfk’ (not *y6-dfGk’) ‘let
him soak!’ and y6-XfGk’ (not *y6-rGfk’) ‘let him yank!’ are the same though they
have different syllabification patterns. The only segmental difference between
these two verbs is the initial consonant, which is a stop in one case and r in the
other. The same is true in y6-gGmt’ (not *y6-gmGt’) ‘let him chew off!’ and y6-
rmGt’ (not *y6-rGmt’) ‘let him make slim bread!’ Furthermore, some verbs have
both patterns, e.g. y6-kGtf/y6-ktGf ‘let him chop’. Given these facts, it is clear that
the sonority of the last two consonants is not the decisive factor in determining
the site of G in these verbs.
I claim instead that the y6-CCGC pattern is obligatory when: (a) C3 is a
sonorant (i.e. r, m or ö), e.g. y6-gdGr ‘let him put to bed’, or (b) C2 and C3 are
the same (i.e. C2 and C3 are occupied by the same radical), e.g. y6-gdGd ‘let it
germinate, pierce’ and/or (c) C1 is r, cf. (8b). Otherwise, the basic pattern is
y6-CGCC, e.g. y6-kGtf ‘let him chop’. However, some verbs of this class can also
take the y6-CCGC pattern, e.g. y6-ktGf. The relative sonority of the last two
consonants only determines if one verb can have both patterns, e.g. y6-kGtf or y6-
ktGf ‘let him chop’, or not, e.g. y6-kGft but not *y6-kfGt ‘let him open!’.
The y6-rCGC pattern is used in (8b) regardless of the content of C3. Note
also that the y6-rGCC pattern will force the r to be an onset, hence not nasalizable
by , cf. *y6-rGfk’ ‘let him yank’ with an acceptable final cluster fk’, cf. y6-
dGfk’ ‘let him soak!’ However, there is a conspiracy to ensure that /r/ syllabifies
as a coda whenever possible, and the coda undergoes nasalization. Because all
r-initial triradicals take the y6-rCGC pattern the r will always be in the coda and
will nasalize. This shows that the first radical has a role in determining the site
134 SOUND MUTATIONS

of G in the verbs in question. In fact, the syllabification in these verbs is similar

to the syllabification of any CCC, discussed in §1.5.3.

4.3.2 Interaction of PCN with the radical /A/

The nasal in each word of (8) is linked with the penultimate coda of the Jussive
template, in each case followed by a heavy syllable CVC. But in (10) each nasal
is a penultimate coda followed by a CV and not CVC, which should remain an
approximant.
(10) a. Triradicals
y6-nda ‘Let him help!’
y6-nsa/y6̃-sa ‘Let him lift up !’
y6-nt’a ‘Let him turn white!’
y6-nta ‘Let him split  apart!’
y6-]ga ‘Let it coagulate!’
y6-mba ‘Let him split  into half!’
y6-Xfa/y6̃-fa ‘Let him blow  up!’
b. Quadriradicals
y6-f6nda ‘Let it burst!’
y6-k6nta ‘Let him lift up !’
y6-f6nta ‘Let it sprinkle!’
y6-f6]k’a ‘Let it hatch out!’
y6-k’6mba ‘Let him strike !’
y-a-t-g6mba ‘Let him bow down!’
y6-k’6Xfa/y6-k’6̃fa ‘Let him strike!’
Penultimate Coda Nasalization presents a testing ground for many intricacies of
Chaha phonology. For instance, it gives us a solid ground for the claim that a in
examples such as y6-]ga ‘let it coagulate!’ and y6-k’6mba ‘let him hit!’, depicted
in (11), represents a radical A which, like any other radical consonant, has its
own C slot, i.e. y6-]ga is formed from –rgA and y6-k’6mba is formed from
–k’röA. (See also Marcos 1974: 21, Hetzron 1977: 76, Lowenstamm 1991b,
1996a: 424, Rose 1992: 96, Petros 1993a: 15ff., Prunet and Petros 1996: 318, and
Prunet 1996b: 182 for compatible proposals.) From this perspective, A is the final
and r the antepenultimate radical, i.e. r is followed by a heavy CVC syllable and
it nasalizes due to . In other words, bGt in y6-s6mbGt ‘let him sojourn!’ (9b),
and ba in y6-k’6mba ‘let him hit!’ (11b), have equal weight which allows the
preceding r to nasalize. (Association of /A/ to the VC in (11) is intended to mean
that /A/ is an underlying abstract stem-final consonant but it spreads to the
preceding V slot and surfaces as a vowel).
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 135

(11) a. y6-C C V C b. y6-C 6 C C V C

r g A k’ r ö A
y6-]ga ‘Let it coagulate!’ y6-k’6mba ‘Let him hit!’
Notice that 6 in the Jussive stem k’6mba is a clear indication of the fact that the
verb is a quadriradical. It parallels y6-s6mbGt ‘let him sojourn!’ from (8c). In
addition, r in the Perfective k’Gr6pa-m ‘he has hit!’ is not an underlying geminate
whereas p is. Perfective gemination affects the penultimate consonant, e.g.
sGr6p6t6-m ‘he has sojourned’ and never the final one, e.g. *s6n6p from –srö. This
proves that p in k’Gr6pa-m is the penultimate and not the final consonant. It then
follows that the a in k’Gr6pa-m as well as in man6x ‘has captured’, (the latter is
traditionally called type C) occupies a C slot like any other radical, making these
verbs quadriradicals. Quadriradicals geminate their penult also in the Imperfect-
ive, cf. yG-manx (not *yG-marx) ‘he captures’ and yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’. This
analysis unifies type C with quadriradicals and eliminates this class (as well as
type B, see §2.2.7) from the grammar of Chaha. (See also §1.6.1 on this issue).

4.3.3 Interaction of PCN with complex consonants

The r is also nasalized in (12a, b) even though at the surface it is part of the final
and not the penultimate syllable.
(12) a. Triradicals
y6-]k’w ‘Let him shout!’
y6-\k’y ‘Let him be enraged!’
y6-^c’ ‘Let him pluck!’
y6-f6\k’y ‘Let him pick out seeds!’
b. Quadriradicals
y6-t’6]k’w ‘Let him become deaf!’
y6-f6\ky ‘Let him break the head!’
y6-k’w6^c’ ‘Let him take a handful!’
y6-z6\gy ‘Let him speak!’
136 SOUND MUTATIONS

c. Exceptions
y-a-rw ‘Let him construct!’10
y6-ö6rw ‘Let him bolt!’
The nasalizations in (12) also pose an apparent problem to . However, if we
adopt that these labialized and palatalized consonants are two segments (Petros
1993a, Prunet and Petros 1996, Prunet 1996a and Chapter 7 of this book) nasali-
zation in these verbs follows naturally from  because the labialized and
palatalized consonants are an underlying plain consonant followed by a high
vocoid. Hence, a complex segment such as k’w comprises a heavy syllable, as in
(13). (It will be claimed in Chapter 7 that what docks on k’ is only the terminal
feature [round] of /U/.)
(13) a. y6-C C 6 C b. y6-C 6 C C V C

r k’ U t’ r k’ U
y6-]k’ ‘Let him shout!’
w
y6-t’6]k’ w

‘Let him become deaf!’

w
According to the present analysis, y6-]k’ is an intransitive verb which has the
y6-CC6C Jussive template where k’w encompasses the final C6C. However, had k’w
in these examples been a single phoneme similar to the k’ in y6-t’Grk’ ‘let him scoop
out!’, the nasalization would be unexplained since a singly linked penultimate r
always surfaces as r. Notice that in contrast to the verbs in (12a, b), r of a
transitive triradical such as y6-t’Grk’ (and all similar verbs given in (1)) is a coda
followed by a single plain consonant, and r surfaces as r. To my knowledge,
there is no singly linked r in Chaha verbs which surfaces as n before one plain
consonant, i.e. we have y6-t’Grk’ and never *y6-t’G]k’. Contrary to a penultimate
coda r, a final coda r always remains an approximant. Similarly, given that, in my
view, k’w in y6-]k’w occupies two C slots, it is plausible to claim that bw in bw6n6s
‘has felt lonely’ does too. This implies that bw6n6s is a quadriradical, which has
gemination in the Perfective as well as Imperfective, e.g. yG-w6ns (not *yG-w6rs)
‘he feels lonely’. As proposed in Petros (1993a: 9–16) this unifies this class of
verbs with quadriradicals and eliminates it from the analysis of Chaha verbs.

10. The a in y-a-rw ‘let him construct!’ is the causative prefix. The a is absent when we add the
prefix t6-, as in t6-r6w6-m ‘it is constructed’ while a radical a remains, ag6d ‘has tied’ and t-ag6d ‘has
been imprisoned’. A radical a centralizes to 6 in the Imperative/Jussive stem, e.g. 6g(G)d ‘tie!’, while
the a in y-a-rw does not, as is the case with the causative prefix in all instances, e.g. y-a-öra ‘let him
feed!’ (See also Petros 1994: 1221 for more criteria to distinguish a prefixal a from a radical one.)
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 137

Now, compare the r and n in the nominal stems such as gw6rd-6ra ‘big
trunks of wood for building a wall’ (from –gUrd ‘cut off in big piece’) and
t’6]k’w-ara ‘deaf’ (from –t’rk’U ‘become deaf’). In the present analysis, r in
gw6rd- is not followed by a complex consonant while it is in t’6]k’w-, so a nasal
is correctly predicted to be found only in the latter. This supports the position
that  does not take suffixal segments into account and that complex conso-
nants are biphonemic. That is, r is the antepenultimate radical only in the latter,
and nasalizes according to .
The sound w in the exceptions of (12c), above, is a complex consonant. For
instance, in y-a-rw ‘let him construct!’, w must occupy two C slots, as shown in
(14a), for the verb to have the minimal triconsonantal template. Note that there
is no verb with a biconsonantal template such as y-a-rs, a biradical such as –rs
should double the second radical to form –rss. In addition, w is not actually stem-
final, as indicated by the presence of the stem-final 6 in the Perfective a-r6w6-xwG-
m (not *a-r6w-xwG-m) ‘I have constructed’. These indicate that it is formed from –rsI.
(14) a. y-a-C C V C b. y6-C 6 C C V C

r s I ö r s I
y-a-rw ‘Let him construct!’ y6-ö6r w ‘Let him bolt!’
Similarly, the Jussive y6-ö6rw ‘let him bolt!’ has the vowel 6 after C1, symptomat-
ic of a quadriradical. In addition, in contrast to the Perfective n in triradicals
such as b6n6s ‘has demolished’, the r in bGr6w6 ‘has bolted’ is not a geminate and
is not surrounded by a 6-6 vowel sequence. These indicate that bGr6w6 is formed
from a quadriradical –örsI, and its Jussive should be as (14b). In this account, w
is a complex consonant in both (14a) and (14b) and r is followed by CVC#.
Penultimate Coda Nasalization states that such an r should nasalize. Yet, r in
(14a, b) does not nasalize and it poses problem to . I assume that these two
forms are exceptions to , as is y6-s6rk’Gt’, (8d).
In this section, we have investigated 59 verbs containing an antepenultimate
radical r which, in my analysis, should nasalize according to . A total of 56
verbs, listed in (8a–c), (10a, b) and (12a, b), corroborate  while a total of
three exceptions (y6-s6rk’Gt’, (8d), and y-a-rw, y6-ö6rw, (12c)) do not.

4.4 The role of doubling on PCN

In stems involving doubling,  applies only if the r also undergos Initial
Nasalization, (5). (See Petros 1996b for a different view on this.) For example, r in
138 SOUND MUTATIONS

y6-nd6d ‘let it burn!’ undergoes  because it also nasalizes in n6d6d ‘has burn’
due to Initial Nasalization whereas r in y6-g6rdGd ‘let him cut in big slices!’ does
not undergo  because it is not subject to some other rule of nasalization. In
other words, in stems involving doubling,  applies if and only if an output-
output correspondence relation can be established between the output of  and
that of some other rule, such as Initial Nasalization. (See, among others, Benua
1995, Kenstowicz 1995, and Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999 on output-output
correspondence.)

4.4.1 PCN in verbs with a doubled medial radical

The examples in (15a) differ with those in (15b) in that  applies only in the
former. What distinguishes (15a) from (15b) is that the medial consonant is
doubled in the latter. The absence of  in the frequentative Jussive, (15b),
shows that the nasal in the simple Jussive of (15a) is not transferred to (15b),
which indicates that (15b) is not cyclically derived from the output of (15a).
Similarly, the presence of a nasal in (15a) does not trigger the nasalization of r
in (15b), as the r here is not followed by a CVC# to be a subject of .
(15)  and its absence in verbs with medial doubling
a. Simple Jussive b. Frequentative Jussive
y6-XfGk’/y6̃-fGk’ y6-rf6f(G)k’ ‘Let him yank (repeatedly)!’
y6-mb6t’ y-a-röaöt’ ‘Let him be/make flexible!’
y6-mf6s/y6̃-f6s y-a-rfaf(G)s ‘Let it/him wind/ventilate!’
y6-ndGf y6-rd6d(G)f ‘Let it sting (here and there)!’
y6-]gGd y6-rgag(G)d ‘Let him touch (repeatedly)!’
y6-]k’Gr y6-rk’6k’Gr ‘Let him uproot (repeatedly)!’
y6-]k’Gt’ y6-rk’6k’Gt’ ‘Let him kick repeatedly!’
y6-]kGs y6-rk6k(G)s ‘Let him bite (here and there)!’
y6-nsa/y6̃-sa y6-rsasa ‘Let him get up/initiate!’
y6-nt’Gk’ y6-rt’6t’(G)k’ ‘Let him snatch (here and there)!’
y6-nta y6-rtata ‘Let him take apart (repeatedly)!’
y6-]x6ö/y6̃-x6ö y6-tG-rx6x6ö ‘Let him find/show up!’
y6-rmGr y6-rm6mGr ‘Let him pinch pennies!’
Medial doubling in (15b) is morphologically triggered to satisfy a reduplicative
infix (see also Petros 1993a: 42 and §3.6.3). Assuming that the copied radical and
radicals of the base are on different tiers, r is the antepenultimate radical in both
(15a) and (15b). But r is followed by a CVC# only in (15a) so  predicts that
r should nasalize in (15a) and not in (15b). The prediction is borne out.
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 139

4.4.2 PCN in verbs with a doubled final radical

The following verbs are formed from biradicals of which the first is r, i.e. r is
the penultimate coda in (16a) and the initial consonant in (16b). This r is
nasalized in both cases. (The n in a-n6b6ö reflects the Amharic form.)
(16)  in forms with initial nasalization
a. Jussive b. Perfective
y-a-mbGö a-n6b6ö/a-r6b6ö ‘read’ (< Amharic)
y6-]k’Gk’ n6k’6k’ ‘tear  wide apart’
y6-nz6z/y6̃-z6z n6z6z ‘dream’
y6-nd6d n6d6d ‘burn ()’
Like the verbs in (16a), those in (17a) are also formed by final doubling and they
are followed by a CVC#. Yet the r is not nasalized. The question, then, is: why
an r followed by a CiVCi# nasalizes in (16a) while it does not in (17a) and how
can we formally express the difference between the verbs of (16a) and (17a)?
(17) Absence of  in forms without initial nasalization
a. Jussive b. Perfective
y-a-ö6rdGd a-ör6d6d ‘put too much (e.g. salt!’
y-a-gw6rfGf a-gwr6f6f ‘bristle up’
y6-d6rzGz dGr6z6z ‘be very blunt’
y6-g6rdGd gGr6d6d ‘cut in big slices’
y6-m6rdGd mGr6d6d ‘go deeper, whip’
y6-ö6rgGg bGr6g6g ‘be startled, bolt’
y6-f6rdGd fGr6d6d ‘fold (sleeves), uncover’
y6-f6rt’Gt’ fGr6t’6t’ ‘open by force’
y6-m6rk’Gk’ mGr6k’6k’ ‘tear completely, scratch’
y6-]-k6rtGt G]-kGr6t6t ‘incline’
y6-s6rtGt sGr6t6t ‘feel ill at ease constantly’
y6-t’6rk’Gk’ t’Gr6k’6k’ ‘scoop a lot’11
y6-t-f6r/]k’6k’ t6-fr6k’6k’ ‘be careless’
y6-t-m6rg6g t6-mr6g6g ‘be very slim and straight’
y6-t-m6rk6k t6-mr6k6k ‘kneel down’
y6-n-z6röGö Gn-zGr6p6ö ‘bend over (branches of
trees)’
Exception: y6-t-x6mb6ö t6-xr6p6ö ‘cover with an umbrella!’

11. The final 6 in y6-t-f6r/]k’6k’, y6-t-m6rg6g and y6-t-m6rk6k is due to the reflexive prefix t-.
140 SOUND MUTATIONS

In my view, the difference between (16a) and (17a) is that the stems in the
former (C1C2C2) are formed from biradicals and r is initial — subject to
nasalization in the Perfective — while the stems in the latter (C1C2C3C3) are
formed from triradicals and r is not initial (nor geminate) to be nasalized. The r
in the Jussive, (16a), is nasalized because it is followed by a CVC# and there is
a morphologically related word where the r is nasalized, the Perfective of (16b).
The r of (17a) is not nasalized regardless of following CVC# as it does not have
a corresponding nasal output in the Perfective of (17b). The difference between
(16a) and (17a) shows that an output-output correspondence relation plays a
decisive role concerning  in verbs involving doubling. y6-t-x6mb6ö, from
(17a), is an exception in that it undergoes  even though no corresponding
nasal exists in the Perfective (or any other form).

4.4.3 PCN in verbs with total reduplication

The Jussive verbs of (18) are also formed from biradicals. In addition, at the
surface level, the stem-initial r is a penultimate coda (followed by a super heavy
syllable) and it has a corresponding nasal in the Perfective. (In the Perfective of
the first five forms, nasalization applies to both r’s while in the last two forms
it applies only to the medial r.) If  targeted any penultimate coda r that has
a corresponding nasal, the r in (18a) could have been nasalized. Yet, the r is not
targeted by  because it is not followed by a CVC#, as my analysis predicts.
(18) Absence of  in r1C2Vr1C2# verbs
a. Jussive b. Perfective
y6-rg6rg nGg6n6g ‘covet’
y6-rs6rs nGs6n6s ‘scatter’
y6-rt’6rt’ nGt’6n6t’ ‘oscillate’
y6-rx6rx nGx6n6x ‘shake hard’
y6-rz6rz nGz6n6z ‘nag’
y-a-rfarf a-rfan6f ‘make dirty’
y-a-rk’6rk’ a-rk’6n6k’ ‘dig a hole’
The stem-medial r in (19b) is followed by a CVC# but fails to nasalize (save the
exception y6-d6ndGr ‘let him/it be stout!’12

12. Notice the difference in the position of 6 in (18a) and (19a). Given that both are formed by total
reduplication, we expect them to have the same vocalic pattern, but the verbs of (18a) have the
y6-CC6CC pattern whereas those of (19a) have the regular y6-C6CCGC pattern. See §6.4.2 for deriving
y6-CC6CC from the regular y6-C6CCGC, e.g. y6-r6grGg → y6-rg6rg, due to a tendency to syllabify r
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 141

(19) Absence of  in C1Vr2C1Vr2# verbs

a. Jussive b. Perfective
y6-f6rfGr fGr6f6r ‘breed worms’
y-a-X-f6rfGr a-X-fGr6f6r ‘grow young shoots’
y6-k’6rk’Gr k’Gr6k’6r ‘prevent’
y-a-]-k’6rk’Gr a-]-k’Gr6k’6r ‘shake ’
y6-s6rsGr sGr6s6r ‘scrap to level’
y-a-n-s6rsGr a-n-sGr6s6r ‘boil ’
y6-t’6rt’Gr t’Gr6t’6r ‘suspect’
y-a-n-t’6rt’Gr a-n-t’Gr6t’6r ‘hung’
y6-d6rdGr d’Gr6t6r ‘stamp’
y-a-m-b6rbGr a-m-bGr6p6r ‘fluff cotton’
y6-t6rtGr tGr6t6r ‘tear’
y6-z6rzGr zGr6s6r ‘change money’
y6-c6rcGr cGr6c6r ‘retail’
y6-gw6rgwGr gwGr6kw6r ‘burrow’
y6-m6rmGr mGr6m6r ‘be skinny’
y6-w6rwGr wGr6w6r ‘level’
y6-xw6rxwGr xwGr6xw6r ‘take out earwax’
Exception: y6-d6ndGr dGr6t6r ‘be stout’
Even though the r in (18a) has a corresponding nasal in (18b) it is not followed
by a CVC#, so  is not expected. The medial r in (19a) is followed by a
CVC# but it does not have a corresponding nasal in (19b), so  is not
expected. The predictions are borne out in both cases. Again, the fact that r is
not nasalized in (19a) shows that the mere fact of being followed by a CVC# is
insufficient for being nasalized. What characterizes the stems in (17a) and (19a)
is that they involve doubling and they include an r that is followed by a CVC#
but lacks a nasal correspondent in a related morphological form. This explains
the absence of .
The r is not nasalized either in the reduplicated passive participles of
(20).13 (See Banksira 1999 for exhaustive list and analysis of such words.)

as a coda in order to avoid the obstruent-r cluster.

13. Even though there are words in which we have n, as in c’Gnn bar6-m or c’Gn c’Gn bar6-m ‘he has
hesitated’, these are two words, as in gGrdGm a-m6n6-m or gGrdGm gGrdGm a-m6n6-m ‘he has cut in big
slices’. (In cases where there is no reduplication, n is geminated, e.g. c’Gnn ‘hesitated’, and constitutes
the basic triconsonantal template.) So, c’Gn c’Gn is not a reduplicated word to be compared with the
participles of (20) such as c’Grc’Gr ‘flowed slowly’.
142 SOUND MUTATIONS

(20) An r in reduplicated participles

g6rg6r ‘confused’ c’Grc’Gr ‘flowed slowly’
k’6rk’6r ‘waken up’ wGrwGr ‘gotten crazy’
k6rk6r ‘simulated’ cGrcGr ‘tried hard’
t’Grt’Gr ‘burnt steadily’ f wGrf wGr ‘moved a little’
wGrwGr ‘strolled’ k’w6rk’w6r ‘meandered’
As in (19a), the medial r does not have a corresponding nasal. Therefore, r
remains an approximant for the same reason as in (19a). Even though it is
possible to assume that the medial r in (19a) and (20) remains an approximant
to maintain its identity with the final one, I do not adopt this analysis because it
cannot account for why  is blocked in (17a), where reduplicative identity is
not at issue.
The generalizations are that an r followed by a CVC# nasalizes due to 
in verbs without doubling, i.e. V-r1C2VC3 and C1Vr2C3VC4 (e.g. y6-ngGd ‘let him
touch!’ and y6-s6mbGt ‘let him sojourn’. Here,  does not need to be enforced
by nasalization in a morphologically related form. Penultimate Coda Nasalization
applies also in verbs with doubling but only if it is enforced by the presence of
nasalization, dues to an independent reason, in a morphologically related form,
e.g. y6-nd6d/n6d6d ‘burn ()’. Otherwise,  does not apply in verbs with
doubled radical.

4.5 The role of the OCP on PCN

Penultimate Coda Nasalization is blocked if the root contains the labial nasal m,
(see also Leslau 1985: 236, footnote 2), as in (21). Here, r is followed by a
CVC# and there is no doubled radical, so it is expected to nasalize but it does
not:
(21) Absence of  due to nasal dissimilation
a. Triradicals
y6-rma ‘Let it grow (plants)!’
y6-rm6d ‘Let him love!’
y6-rmGr ‘Let him pinch pennies!’
y6-rmGt’ ‘Let him make slim bread!’
b. Quadriradicals
y6-k’w6rmGz ‘Let it get ripe (cereal)!’
y6-k’6rt’Gm ‘Let him amputate !’
y6-m6rgGd ‘Let him act mad!’
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 143

y6-m6rk’y ‘Let him lop off!’

y6-t’6rk’Gm ‘Let him tie tightly!’
y6-xw6rmGt’ ‘Let him age without physical growth!’
y6-d6rgGm ‘Let him do  at once!’
y6-g6rdGm ‘Let him break  in two!’
y6-g6rmGt’ ‘Let him stare at someone!’
y6-m6rkwGs ‘Let him be a monk!’
y6-m6rky ‘Let him be dangerous!’
c. Exception
y6-]k’Gm ‘Let him gather!’
I attribute the absence of  in (21) to nasal dissimilation, i.e. the avoidance of
 violation. On the other hand, I have no explanation for the exception in (21c).
As mentioned in McCarthy (1986b), the  prevents a stem from contain-
ing identical (auto)segments, here [nasal]. Due to this, the penultimate coda r
remains an approximant when the root contains a nasal segment. According to
McCarthy (1988: 98), no cases of nasal dissimilations triggered by  effects
are attested, but the examples above are of this kind. It should be noted,
however, that this restriction does not hold with , cf. n6m6d (not *r6m6d) ‘has
loved’ and , cf. x6n6m (not *x6r6m) ‘has stayed a year’.14 This can be seen
as ranking in the Optimality Theory framework where an initial [r] and geminate
[rr] are severely banned, so the nasal obtains even if it results in a violation of
the  whereas  is lower ranked and the rCVC# is banned only if the nasal
will not result in a violation of the .
In words such as y6-g6rdGm ‘let him break  in two!’ from (21b), r is not
adjacent to m since d intervenes between the two, yet  is blocked. This
implies that the restriction on having two nasals applies at the nasal tier and that
the obstruent between them (d in this case) is not specified for [nasal], i.e.
[nasal] is monovalent.
Gemination in the stem applies to a penultimate consonant, e.g. z6n6ö, (22a).
This means that in both Geminate Nasalization and Degemination (), (22a),
and , (22b), the nasalized r is linked to the penultimate coda — before
degemination in (22a).

14. Prunet (1990: 496) discusses a case of denasalization and nasal deletion triggered by the  in
French loans in Carrier. See also Odden (1994) for more data and discussion of nasal dissimilation.
144 SOUND MUTATIONS

(22) a. y6-C 6 C C 6 C b. y6-C 6 C C V C

z r ö s r ö t
z6n6ö ‘has rained’ y6-s6mbGt ‘Let him sojourn!’
It may seem that  is a subset of ; however, the two types of nasalization
differ in three important aspects. First,  is blocked in cases where the root
contains an m whereas  is not. Second,  is blocked in stems involving
doubled radicals (unless it is enforced by output-output correspondence) whereas
doubling does not block . Finally,  involves degemination while 
does not. Given these differences, it is impossible to consider  a subset of
.
An affixal m does not block , as in (23a, b).
(23) Stem vs. affix distinction and 
a. m6-^j6 ‘help’
m6-]k’w6r ‘the last stage of the 6s6t-plant’
m6-^c6 ‘pillage’
m6-]g6s ‘name of a month’
m6-]k6s ‘stomach-ache’
b. y6-]gGd-6ma ‘Let them () touch !’
That a nasal blocks  only when it belongs to the stem shows that the domain
of application for  is the stem, i.e. the nasal introduced by morphological
affixation is not considered in (23).
The dissimilation is also an interesting argument that r is underlyingly
nonnasal, for while  is blocked when a root contains the nasal m, it is not
blocked when a root contains r. For instance, the stem-initial r in y6-mb6r ‘let
him live!’ y6-ndGr ‘let him bore a hole!’ and y6-]k’Gr ‘let him uproot!’ nasalizes due
to  regardless of the stem-final r. However, had the final r been underlyingly
[nasal] it would have triggered nasal dissimilation in the same way that m does.
Again, consider the different role of m and n on , (24). The r in the
passive participles of (24a) is followed by CVC# but it does not nasalize because
the final m precludes . However, the penultimate-coda r nasalizes in (24b)
even though the words terminate by n, which I assume to be a nasalized and
simplified /rr/.
(24) Absence of nasal dissimilation with n
a. k’Grt’Gm b. sG]k’wGn ‘amputate/bleed from the nose’
dGrgGm fG\k’yGn ‘fall at once/turn at once’
t’Grk’Gm c’G]k’wGn ‘become tight/drink completely’
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 145

The nasalization difference between (24a) and (24b) demonstrates that the
derived nasal n in (24b) is unable to block . This shows that an underlying
nasal m differs from the derived nasal n in blocking .

4.6 PCN and borrowings

Penultimate Coda Nasalization does not apply to the verbs in (25), in which r is
an approximant before a CVC# although there is neither doubling nor nasal
dissimilation.
(25) Absence of  in loan verbs
Chaha Amharic
y6-ö6rk’Gt’ yG-ö6lk’Gt’ ‘Let him bolt (Chaha), open  apart
(Amharic)’15
y6-g6röGt’ yG-g6löGt’ ‘Let him turn over!’
y6-ö6rta yG-ö6rta ‘Let him be courageous!’
y6-g6rdGf yG-g6rdGf ‘Let him grind coarsely!’
These verbs are borrowed from Amharic and I attribute the failure of nasalization
to the fact that they are loans. These are not totally adapted to the phonology of
Chaha. (They are adapted partially since the [l] of Amharic is not kept in the
first two examples of Chaha even though the [r] of Chaha is not nasalized).

4.7 Alternations of [r] and front vowels

The Perfective n in (26), which in my analysis is /rr/, alternates with front

vowels; it surfaces as i in the Jussive and e in the Imperfective. But I have
argued that r becomes either n or r, not i/e, so we need to provide a source for
i/e in these examples or accept i/e as a third realization of r. In addition, we need
evidence that /r/ (and not /n/), despite the absence of a phonetic [r], is the source
of i/e/n alternation. These verbs have the palatal nasal [\] in related Gurage dialects.
(26) Jussive Imperfective Perfective
y-a-mi y-a-me a-m6n6 ‘do, work’
y6-gi yG-ge g6n6 ‘cast a spell’

15. It is not evident whether Chaha y6-ö6rk’Gt’ ‘let him bolt’ is semantically related with Amharic
yG-ö6lk’Gt’ ‘let him open  (e.g. legs/eyelids) wide apart’.
146 SOUND MUTATIONS

y6-ji yG-je j6n6 ‘cripple’16

y6-k’i/y6k’re yG-k’e k’6n6 ‘get lost, disappear’
y6-ti yG-te t6n6 ‘swear’
y6-xi yG-xe x6n6 ‘dig a hole’
Even though r in most of these verbs does not surface as r, it can be detected in
some derived nouns such as jGr6 ‘cripple (n.)’ vs. j6n6 ‘has crippled’. In addition,
the Jussive y6-k’i/y6k’re shows that the Perfective n of the verb alternates with
r.17 Moreover, Chaha [n] does not become [y] when palatalized while we have
[y] in the derived nouns t6y6 ‘oath’ (vs. t6n6 ‘has sworn’) and x6y6 ‘abyss’ (vs.
x6n6 ‘has dug a hole’), showing that [y] in these nouns is a palatalized r. Finally,
if we postulate /n/ only to account for the Perfective n in (26) this /n/ will not be
distinct from /r/ because a geminate /r/ also surfaces as [n]. Note also that the i/e
of (26) alternates with r, as shown in the conjugation forms, y-a-mr-o ‘let them
() do, work’ and y-a-m6r-o ‘they () do, work’. Based on these
considerations, I consider the penult of the above verbs to be an /r/.
Let us now turn to the i/e/n alternation in (26). First of all, I follow
Polotsky (1951: 18) in assuming that the vowels i and e can arise respectively
from *Gy and *6y. In addition, I propose that (as r is the penultimate radical) I is
the final radical of these verbs (see Rose 1992, Prunet and Petros 1996 and
Prunet 1996a for similar proposals). So, the verbs of (26), depicted in (27), are
triradicals of the form –CrI. The penult of triradical verbs do not geminate in the
Imperfective, so r in (27a, b) is simple. However, the salient terminal feature
[−back] of I (which according to Sagey 1990 is dominated by the Dorsal
articulator) delinks from Dorsal and docks on the preceding r (see §7.2.2 for a
detailed discussion). The [−back] palatalizes r to y and the y surfaces as i, as in
y6-xGrI → y6-xGy → y6-xi. This gives rise to a phonetic complementarity between
r and I (see Lowenstamm 1996b: 128). In (27b), r is preceded by 6 and, when
palatalized, r (i.e. y) fuses with 6 resulting in e, as in yG-x6rI → yG-x6y → yG-xe.
(Nodes dominating Dorsal are omitted.)

16. The j in j6n6 functions like a simplex (nonpalatalized) consonant, i.e. the verb conjugates like a
triradical. This is one of the very few exceptions in which a complex segment occupies a single C.
17. The two possibilities y6-k’i/y6k’re ‘let him/it get lost or disappear!’ arise maybe due to the two
Jussive forms of triradicals, namely y6-CCGC and y6-CC6C. The y6-CCGC pattern is used with
transitive verbs while the y6-CC6C pattern is used with intransitive verbs (Leslau 1964). When –k’rI
takes the y6-CCGC pattern it yields y6-k’i whereas when it takes the y6-CC6C pattern it yields y6-k’re.
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 147

(27) a. Jussive b. Imperfective

y6-C C C yG-C C C

x r Dorsal x r Dorsal
= =
[–back] [–back]
y6-xi ‘Let him dig a hole’ yG-xe ‘He digs a hole’
c. Perfective
C 6 C C 6 C

x r Dorsal
=
[–back]
x6n6 ‘dug a hole’
The r in the Perfective, (27c), is geminated but it nasalizes and degeminates
according to . In addition, a geminated r (i.e. [n]) absorbs palatalization (as
proposed in Hetzron 1975: 43, see also Rose 1992: 99. Such absorption is also
found in object suffixes, see §9.4.4.) Palatalization in (27) is seen as docking the
[−back] of I on the penult, i.e. x6rr6I → x6nI6 → x6n6. The absorbed final
radical I gives a satisfactory account of the Perfective final 6. The 6-6 in x6n6-
xwG-m ‘I have dug a hole’ parallels the Perfective vowels 6-6 of d6n6g-xwG-m ‘I
have hit ’, but I of the first verb docks on the preceding r, bringing 6 into
stem-final position. The Dorsal in (27) remains unpronounced because it has no
terminal features.
A verb such as s6c’6 ‘has drunk’ is formed from –st’I, and its underlying
form is /s6t’t’6I/. Similarly, a verb such as x6n6 is formed from –xrI, and its
underlying form is /x6rr6I/. The penult in both palatalizes due to the stem-final
I. However, the expected output \ of n-palatalization is invisible in Chaha, i.e.
[−back] is absorbed by n. Accordingly, parallel to the t’/c’ alternation in s6c’6-m
‘he has drunk’ vs. s6t’6-wo-m, (28a), the n in x6n6-m ‘he has dug a hole’, (27c),
is a palatal phonologically (i.e. it includes [−back]) while the one in x6n6-wo-m,
(28b), is an alveolar (i.e. it does not include [−back]). Because [n] absorbs
palatalization, the phonetic difference between n, cf. (28b), and \, cf. (27c), is
neutralized in favor of n.
148 SOUND MUTATIONS

(28) a. C 6 C C 6 C -6 C-m
=
s t’ Dorsal ö/U

[–back]
s6t’6-wo-m/s6t’6-öo-m
‘They () have drunk.’
b. C 6 C C 6 C -6 C-m
=
x r Dorsal ö/U

[–back]
x6n6-wo-m/x6n6-öo-m
‘They () dug a hole.’
An /I/ has to occupy a skeletal slot in order to palatalize (see Appendix 2b). I
assume that the Dorsal node of /I/ delinks in (28) and that [−back] cannot
palatalize the penult because it is not floating. Delinking the Dorsal node of /I/,
as in (28), is meant to express depalatalization as in I-second quadriradicals
(§2.2.7). The plural masculine suffix /-6öU/ (see §7.8) fuses to o but the stem-
final [6w] cannot fuse because it is followed by o, which requires an onset
(Banksira 1992). The sounds [w] and [ö] of (28) are in free variation. In my
view, this is because either /ö/ or /U/ (but not both) of the plural masculine
/-6öU/ propagates to the C slot of /I/, as depicted above. (See Chapter 8 for
discussion of subject affixes.)
One of the problems related to the verbs of (26) was that, in regular verbs
such as d6n6g-xwG-m ‘I have hit ’ the stem ends with a consonant, but in verb
such as x6n6-xwG-m ‘I have dug a hole’, the stem ends with the vowel 6. The
same problem is observed also in (29a, b). Furthermore, so far we have not seen
a stem-final nasalization so the n in the Imperfective of (29) requires an explanation.
(29) Jussive Imperfective Perfective
a. y6-gde yG-gd6n gGd6n6 ‘become furious’
y6-gze yG-gz6n gGz6n6 ‘age’
y6-we yG-w6n w6n6 ‘nourish, feed well’
y6-Šöe yG-Šö6n ŠGö6n6 ‘crave’
b. y-a-cr7 y-a-cran a-cran6 ‘bring to an end, complete
y-a-kr7 y-a-kran a-kran6 ‘rent’
y-a-wr7 y-a-wran a-wran6 ‘detect, find out’
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 149

The [n] of these verbs also derives from /r/. The r/n alternation in w6r6t ‘food’ vs.
w6n6 ‘has fed’ and Š6öGr ‘craving person/cat’ vs. ŠGö6n6 ‘has craved’ shows that
[n] of the verbs alternates with [r]. There is no r/n alternation in g6d6n6 ‘furious’
vs. gGd6n6 ‘has become furious’ and g6z6n6 ‘old’ vs. gGz6n6 ‘has aged’. This may
be because /r/ is geminated in both the adjectives and the verbs. On the other
hand, r and n in (29b) originate from the same phoneme. The simplex form
surfaces as r, and this is the form which underlies the two. Accordingly, I
conclude that r and n in (29) originate from /r/.
As depicted in (30), n in the Imperfective is geminated because the verb is
quadriconsonantal, which geminate their penult in the Imperfective, cf. yG-t’öanGr
(not *yG-t’öarGr) ‘he rolls ’, but not in the Jussive, cf. y6-t’öarGr (not *y6-
t’öanGr) ‘let him roll !’ The penult geminates also in the Perfective, as this is
common to all verbs. (The complex consonants of (29) function as single phonemes.)
(30) a. Jussive b. Imperfective
y-a-C C a C C y-a-C C a C C V C

w r r Dorsal w r r Dorsal
= =
[–back] [–back]
y-a-wr7 y-a-wran
c. Perfective
a-C C a C C 6 C

w r r Dorsal
=
[–back]
a-wran6 ‘detect’
The [−back] of I in (30a) palatalizes r to y, and the y fuses with a yielding 7.
The difference in the final vowel of verbs such as y-a-wr7, (30a), and y6-gde ‘let
him become furious!’, from (29a), is due to the quality of the vowel preceding
the penult: a combines with y to yield 7, and 6 combines with y to yield e. When
r is a geminate, as in (30b, c), it is phonologically palatalized but palatalization
has no phonetic effect.
Finally, consider the verbs in (31), where we have n in all forms.
(31) Jussive Imperfective Perfective
a. y6-t’6n yG-c’6n c’6n6 ‘beget’
y6-t6n yG-c6n c6n6 ‘come’
150 SOUND MUTATIONS

b. y6-öan yG-öan ban6 ‘stop raining’

y-on y-on on6 ‘yell’
I assume that these verbs are quadriradicals, e.g. c’6n6 derives from –t’IrI and
ban6 from –öArI. Accordingly, gemination in the Perfective and Imperfective is
expected. On the other hand, gemination in the Jussive of (31a) arises to
compensate for depalatalization (see §2.2.7). Nevertheless, I have no explanation
for why the two Jussives of (31b) have gemination. This terminates the discus-
sion of verbs with a penultimate r and final I. The r vs. vowel alternation in
verbs involving labialization will be discussed in §7.6.5. See Lowenstamm
(1996b) for an account of similar alternations in C1Gy6 (Perfective) verbs.

4.8 Liquids and nasals in some problematic stems

Setting the exceptional nonalternating [n] found in the Jussive of two verbs in
(31b) aside, I have shown that [n] in all instances alternates with [r] and that [r]
and [n] are in complementary distribution. It then follows that r and n are
nondistinctive. In addition, I have proposed an analysis which derives [r] and [n]
from /r/ and which predicts the distribution of the allophones. However, most of
my discussion so far was based on verb stems. We will now see that even
though it is possible to derive all [n]’s of the language from an /r/ this cannot be
done without the assumption that all nonalternating [n]’s are /rr/. We will also
see that there are arguments suggesting that nonalternating [n]’s are /rr/, i.e. rr
→ N (homorganic nasal). This, as well, has some problematic cases and a
handful of exceptions. These will be discussed next.
Consider the minimal pairs of r and n in the nonverbal stems of (32).
Unless we find some evidence bearing on the geminateness of r in (32b) its
nasalization is unexpected, as it is a medial onset (i.e. it is neither initial nor
followed by a CVC#).
(32) r/n contrast in a medial onset
a. c’6r-6t b. c’6n6-t ‘load/interest, bud’
g6r6 g6n6 ‘a piece of broken clay/country’
k6r6 k6n6 ‘day/physician, engineer, right’
mera mena ‘generous/work’
mwGra mwGna ‘full/freedom’
mw6r6 mw6n6 ‘border, edge/bladder, leather bag’
w6ra w6na ‘good quality (root of vegetable)/empty’
w6r6t w6n6t ‘allotment/hoe’
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 151

These minimal pairs suggest that r and n are contrastive. My position is that in
some of the pairs the contrast is due to length, i.e. [n] is /rr/. Let us discuss c’6r-
6t ‘load’ and c’6n6-t ‘interest, bud’, to show that their contrast is skeletal. We
know that c’6r-6t ‘load’ is related to c’ar6-m ‘he has loaded’. This implies that
r in c’6r-6t is stem-final and nongeminated. So there is no reason for r to
nasalize in c’6r-6t. But c’6n6-t ‘interest, bud’ is related to the I-second quadri-
radical c’6n6-6-m → c’6n6m ‘he has begotten, it has accrued interest’ (I have
shown in §2.2.7 that such verbs always have gemination). This implies that n in
c’6n6t is stem-internal and geminated, hence /t’I6rr6I-6t/ → [c’6n6t]. The [n] here
parallels the [p] in /g6öö6A-6t/ → [g6pat] ‘evening’, which is related with g6pa-
m ‘he/it (the sun) has entered’. Based on this, it is possible to generalize that n
in (32b) is a geminate, which nasalizes and degeminates due to , (2). This
generalization is supported by the phonetically geminate equivalents of (32b) in
the geminating dialect Eža, e.g. c’6nn6-t ‘load/interest, bud’, g6nn ‘country’,
k6nn6 ‘physician, engineer, right’, mw6nn6 ‘bladder, leather bag’ and w6nn6t
‘hoe’. According to Leslau (1979), the n in mena ‘work’ is not a geminate in
Eža, while it is in Masqan and Muher (menna and merra respectively). But n in
w6na ‘empty (house)’ is simple even in the geminating dialects, making the
generalization untenable (at least for that pair).
The data in (33) show that the two sounds contrast also in a coda position.
(33) r/n contrast in a coda
a. sir b. sin ‘hide of cattle (hairless)/cup’
mwar mwan ‘share/who’
gGrd gGnd ‘misery, obligation/log’
Because the n of (33b) is simplex in all geminating dialects (Leslau 1979) it is
difficult to postulate /rr/ for the n in (33b). Accordingly, the contrast in (33) is
problematic to the claim that r and n are not contrastive. The contrast in (33a)
vs. (33b) forces us to admit that r and n are contrastive (or at least we presently
cannot show without exception that they are not) in nonverbs. I assume that these
are exceptions, in which an older contrast remains intact.
In the nouns of (34) r and n contrast in a penultimate coda position, while
a verbal r in this position nasalizes due to .
(34) r/n contrast in a penultimate coda
a. arwa b. enwa ‘self/dry trunk of 6s6t-plant’
arö6t a]g6t ‘four/neck’
b6rc6 gw6^c6 ‘misfortune due to bad deeds/hyena’
darka danga ‘dewlap/cheek’
152 SOUND MUTATIONS

wGrk’w6 w6]k’w6 ‘cold, frost/dust’

w6rkw6 w6\ky6 ‘a big tent (sign of importance),
funeral dance/monkey’
Nominal stems of (34a) show that [r] is found before a CVC#, against .
These also are exceptions. Given my analysis, [c6] is /t6I/, [ga] is /g6A/, etc.
Accordingly, the nasal in (34b) is followed by a CVC# so it is expected due to .

4.9 Liquids and /N/ in affixes

The distribution of liquids and N in affixes diverges in three crucial ways from
what we have seen so far. The first is that there is a surface minimal pair
between r and n in suffixes. Second, we observe an instance of l at suffix
boundaries. (But each of these generalizations holds only in one context.) Third,
no liquid is found in prefixes (i.e. placeless nasal prefixes do not alternate with
a liquid). (My discussion of nasals here excludes m, which, of course, is an
underlying nasal and never alternates with a liquid.) While the r/n minimal pair
will be shown to be apparent (i.e. derivable from gemination) the fact that nasal
prefixes do not alternate with a liquid forces us to postulate a nonalternating
nasal phoneme /N/. (The /N/ is even distinct from /rr/ since we have the contrast
/rr-r/ → [ll], e.g. y-a-c6rr-r-a → yac6lla ‘he brings for her’ vs. /N-r/ → [nn], e.g.
a-N-r6gd → ann6gd ‘I do not touch’. See §5.3.3 and §5.4.1 on this.)

4.9.1 [r] and [n] in suffixes

The benefactive (35a) vs. accusative (35b) contrast is expressed by the minimal
pair -r and -n. This suggests that the r/n contrast is preserved in suffixes.
(35) r/n minimal pair in suffixes
a. yG-t’6öt’G-r-a ‘He catches it for her (advantage).’
b. yG-t’6öt’G-n-a ‘He catches her.’
subject-verb-Case-object
However, I will argue in §9.4.4 that n in (35b) is in fact /rrI/ and that the r/n
contrast in (35a) vs. (35b) is only apparent.
[r] and [n] are found also in a number of other suffixes, as shown in (36).
[n] in most of the examples in (36c) is intervocalic but it still does not become
a liquid. (Such [n] is found also in stems but it is analyzed as /rr/, e.g. z6n6ö ‘has
rained’ vs. yG-z6rGö ‘it rains’.) It should also be noted that most of the [n]’s found
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 153

in (36) are phonetically geminate in the geminating Gurage languages, cf. Eža
n6ŠG-nn6r, gaz-6nn6, etc.
(36) Distribution of [r] and [n] in suffixes
a. Onset [r]
s6stG-ra ‘two days ago’ (cf. s6st-6 the day after tomorrow’)
t’6]k’w-ara ‘deaf’ (cf. t’Gr6k’w6-m ‘become deaf’)
gw6rd-6ra ‘big trunks’ (cf.  gw6rr6d6 ‘cut in big slices’)
b. Coda [r]
x6p6ö-ar ‘encircled place’ (cf. x6p6ö6-m ‘has encircled’)
n6Š-n6r ‘heaviness’ (cf. naz6-m ‘has been heavy’)
wGzgGp-6r ‘regret’ (cf. t-oz6k6ö6-m ‘has regretted’)
c. Onset [n]
bew-n6t ‘friendship’
bet-6na ‘my house’
gaz-6n6 ‘warrior’
k’Grt’G-na ‘contempt’
nG-kGftG-n6 ‘Let us open !’
d. Coda [n]
kGftG-nd6 ‘Open (it to) us!’
bet-6nda ‘our house’
A suffixal [r] can be an onset, (36a), or a coda, (36b). Similarly, [n] can be an
onset, (36c), or a coda, (36d). However, n of (36b, c) is a geminate in most of
the geminating dialects. In addition, none of these examples form a minimal pair
so they do not necessarily require r and n to be distinctive phonemes. The [n]
can be seen as /rr/, as in stems.

4.9.2 The emergence of [l]

A stem-final /r/ becomes [l] when followed by /-rV/ (V = vowel), as in (37a). On

the other hand, /r/ becomes [n] when it is followed by [−n], as in (37b). (See
Chapter 5 on the proper formulation of Lateralization and Nasalization.)
(37) Suffixal r/n contrast between r-final stem and a vowel
a. /yG-f6t’Gr-r-a/ → [yG-f6t’Gl-l-a] ‘He tells lies for her
advantage.’
b. /yG-f6t’Gr-n-a/ → [yG-f6t’Gn-n-a] ‘He tells her lies.’
154 SOUND MUTATIONS

In addition, l is found in the following fairly exhaustive list of which most are loans.
(38) Words containing l
a. at6lla ‘lees of beer’
b6lla ‘disaster’
dik’ala ‘half caste, half breed’
gwalla ‘wall’
gwGdella ‘strap on a horse’
m6lla ‘guess’
t’Glla ‘umbrella’
n6t’6la ‘kind of scarf’
t’6lla ‘traditional beer’
b. bGk’Glle ‘hide’
bGrGlle ‘flask for drinking t’6jj’
bw6lale ‘type of trousers’
gw6dalle ‘yam’
lale ‘song’
sulle ‘trousers’
c. w6llGw6t ‘name of a woman’
w6llub6lla ‘crazy’
w6ll6öa ‘a free-born’
d. allawed ‘nude’
allu ‘betrayal’
bwGllGko ‘toga’
b6k’w6llo ‘corn’
The data in (38) are very homogeneous, which makes it difficult to conclude
that the presence of l in them is an idiosyncratic property of each word. For
instance, l is a geminate in most cases and degemination does not apply to it. In
addition, la in (38a) and le in (38b) seem to be suffixes whereas w6l in (38c)
seems to be a prefix. These facts suggest that the l in (38) is also a lateralized r
at a word-boundary, parallel to the one in (37a). Thus, l is not a distinct pho-
neme of Chaha.

4.9.3 Absence of liquids in prefixes

While a homorganic nasal N is found in a number of prefixes the liquids [l, r] are
not found in prefixes. Prefixes involving N include the past tense (39a, b), the
local-movement (39c, d), and the first person (39f, g) markers. N also serves as
a nominalizing prefix, cf. (39h, i, j). In all of these prefixes N alternates not with
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 155

a liquid but with 6-, as in (39e), and optionally with Ø-, as in (39i).18
(39) Prefixes involving a nasal
a. Ø-Gn-ag6d-x6
neg.-past-tie-you ( )
‘You ( ) may not tie!’
b. a-n-ag6d-x6
neg.-past-tie-you ( )
‘You ( ) have not tied.’
c. G]-k’Gr6k’6r6-m
‘He has moved.’
d. G]-k’Grk’Gr
‘restless’
e. 6-agGd → agGd
‘I tie.’
f. tG-n-agGd
‘while I tie’
g. n-agdG-n6
‘We tie!’
h. Gn-ac’y6
‘ragged mat’
i. (G]-)k’wGs
‘quite’
j. a-n-zGwawGr/ã-zGwawGr
‘land encircled by river’
Given the fact that the nasal in the above forms does not alternate with a liquid
and that no other liquid is found in prefixes we are forced to assume that
prefixes differ from stems in not licensing a liquid. Given that the nasal never
alternates with a liquid analyzing it as /rr/ raises questions. We can thus hypothe-
size that all the above prefixes are nasal, /N/, and that they are underlying
geminates, i.e. /N/ is preserved only in prefixes and only in its geminated form.

18. See Petros (1996a: 139–141) for arguments that the prefix N- in (39a, b) is the past tense — and
not part of the negative — marker and that the negative prefix is Ø- in (39a) and a- in (39b). See
Prunet and Petros (1996) for discussions and an exhaustive list of local movement verbs. See
Chamora (1997) for Inor.
156 SOUND MUTATIONS

(40) Every prefixal N- generates two C slots

C C

N-
The hypothesis that the above nasal prefixes are geminates is supported by
independent arguments. Word-initial geminates are prohibited in Chaha, no word
begins with p or bb. The nasal prefixes above are also prohibited to appear word-
initially, as shown by the absence of the nasal in (39e) where we have the 6-
alternant. Geminates are allowed in word-medial position. When a prefix is
added before the 6- alternant, as in (39f), we obtain n because the geminate r is
allowed in word-medial position. The initial [n] in n-agdG-n6 ‘we tie’, (39g), is
also a geminate but assuming that it is structurally word-internal, as in [[n-[agdG]]
-n6], may explain why it is allowed.
The epenthetic vowel G of Chaha is normally inserted after C1 (see §1.5.3).
But when the prefix is a nasal, G appears before it, as in (39a, c, d, h, i). Assuming
that the nasal occupies CiCi and that geminate inalterability forbids G to break the
CiCi sequence we can readily explain why G is inserted in this unusual site, i.e.
at the beginning.
Stem-initial and prefixal nasals show a remarkable difference with respect
to the insertion site of G. Stem-initial nasals are not preceded by G, e.g. n6g6d6-m
‘he has touched’, because they are not geminates. On the other hand, prefixal
nasals are geminates, which, word-initially, must be preceded by G, e.g. in Gn-
ag6d-x6 ‘you ( ) may not tie!’ Had the nasal in Gn-ag6d-x6 been simple,
there would have been no reason to insert G since *n-ag6d-x6 is a well-syllabified
string in Chaha. But because this n is a geminate *n-ag6d-x6 is ill-formed unless
G is inserted before the nasal to make it noninitial. Note that the insertion of G
before underlying initial geminates is the rule, cf. (41), but these geminates are
special for they are initial and phonetic.
(41) Epenthesis before initial geminates
GddGr ‘cooperation’
Gff ‘blown’
Gkka ‘like that’
GkkGm ‘in vain’
(Gmm)at ‘one’
Gmmet-6n6 ‘a mother of several young’
Gmm6-wec6 ‘mistress’
Gmmw6 ‘pestle’
GmmGy6 ‘large’
 SONORANT ALTERNATIONS 157

Gnnet ‘kind of bamboo’

Gnn6 ‘a bat-like piece of wood’
GnnGm ‘all, every’
Gww ‘sh, ssh’
Gyya ‘I’
The optionality of Gmm in (Gmm)at ‘one’, from (41), parallels that of G] in
(G]-)k’wGs ‘quite’, (39i). However, degemination does not apply in (41), whose
justification awaits further research. Yet, because an initial CiCi is illicit the
insertion of G before it is needed. Accordingly, the only skeletal difference
between the nasal prefixes of (39) and the initial geminates of (41) is that the
geminates in the former are simplified whereas the ones in the latter are not.

4.10 Conclusion

Chaha sonorant alternations are, for the most part, one of the hitherto unsolved
problems. This is not because linguists have paid them little attention but because
the alternations have been conditioned by many seemingly unrelated factors
discussed in this chapter. For instance, due to degemination there is no direct
evidence to determine if an n comes from a geminate or not. Similarly, a pala-
talized obstruent is similar to a nonpalatalized one in many respects so it was not
so clear why /r/ in y6-^c’ ‘let him pluck!’ nasalizes and not in y-6rt’ ‘let him
cut!’ Furthermore, the impact of doubling on nasalization, the verb stem vs.
nonverb/affix distinction in regard to nasalization, the impact of the  on
nasalization and so on have combined together to obscure the alternations. Due
to this, whether r and n were contrastive or not has always been an unresolved
question. The purpose of this chapter has been to throw some light on this
obscure area and reach some generalizations about the alternations.
The alternations in general are accounted for by postulating a single
phoneme r and deriving its different realizations from three types of
nasalization (,  and ). A principled account has been given for most
of the deviating forms and a number of hypotheses have been laid out. For
instance, the gemination of prefixal nasal is one of them. This accounts not only
for the fact that no prefixal n becomes a liquid intervocalically but it also gives
a straightforward account for why we need the epenthetic vowel G before the
majority of prefixes containing a nasal. Similarly, more comprehensive
generalizations about the site of the epenthetic vowel in the Jussive of transitive
triradicals have been attained.
158 SOUND MUTATIONS

I will now present a formal expression of the rules and constraints discussed
in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. I will also introduce a post-N occlusivization of /U/ and
discuss the interaction among the rules.
 C 5

Initial, Geminate and Post-N Strengthening

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter I propose a rule of occlusivization by which [p, b] derive from /ö/.
The same rule derives some [bw] from /U/ and all other [bw] from /öU/. In
addition, I propose a rule of nasalization by which all prevocalic [n]’s and
homorganic nasals belonging to a stem derive from /r/. In other words, all [m]’s
which are not followed by a labial consonant are underlyingly /m/, and no other
underlying nasal exists in a stem. I also propose a rule of lateralization by which
[l] derives from /r/.
I characterize /ö, U, r/ of Chaha as approximants, the allophones [p, b, bw] of
/ö, U/ as occlusives and [n, l] of /r/ as sonorants. I view occlusivization, nasaliza-
tion and lateralization as cases of approximant strengthening in which [+approx]
becomes [−, voice] in occlusives, [−, nasal] in nasals and [−,
lateral] in [l]. Approximants are continuants, but I assume that [+] in them
is unmarked (hence unspecified). Approximants are unspecified also for [voice,
nasal, lateral]. Occlusives [p, b, bw], nasals and [l] are [−], but [−] in
occlusives is unmarked (hence unspecified). Notice also that I consider the
manner features nasal and lateral as well as all Place and Laryngeal features as
monovalent.
Occlusivization occurs when /ö/ is initial and nasalization occurs when /r/ is
initial. These are called initial strengthening and they are discussed in §5.2. In
addition, occlusivization occurs when /ö/ is a geminate and nasalization occurs
when /r/ is a geminate. These are called geminate strengthening and they are
treated in §5.3. Lateralization, which occurs when two /r/’s meet at a morpheme
boundary, is also discussed in §5.3. Moreover, occlusivization occurs when /ö, U/
are post-N and Nasalization occurs when /r/ is post-N. Cases of Post-N strength-
ening are presented in §5.4. Nasalization occurs also when a radical /r/ is
followed by a CVC#. This is not discussed in this chapter but in Chapter 4.
Finally, in §5.5. I compare obstruent strengthening (e.g. /x/ → [k] and /g/ → [k])
160 SOUND MUTATIONS

with approximant strengthening (e.g. /ö/ → [b], /U/ → [bw] and /r/ → [n]) and
discuss some theoretical implications of strengthening. I argue that strengthening
supports viewing the so-called long-distance geminates as two singletons.

5.2 Initial strengthening

5.2.1 Occlusivization

The approximant /ö/ surfaces as an obstruent [b] in absolute initial position, as

in the Perfective of (1). (See §1.3.1, §2.7.2. and §3.8.3. for arguments that /ö/ is
an approximant.)
(1) Medial approximant vs. initial obstruent
Jussive Perfective
y6-öGrs b6n6s < /ö6rr6s/ ‘demolish a dam’
y6-öd6r b6t6r < /ö6dd6r/ ‘be first’
y6-öx6r b6k6r < /ö6xx6r/ ‘lack, miss’
What is at work here is that Chaha does not allow an approximant consonant in
absolute initial position. ([w] is allowed in this position but it is not a consonant.)
This triggers initial strengthening (in this case occlusivization), which applies to
a bilabial approximant consonant, as shown in (2).
(2) Initial Occlusivization (# ö → b)
 +  →  −  / #___
 +   voice 
 Labial 

The production of [b] involves a complete closure of the lips. This could be
expressed by including [−] in the output. However, since [−] in ob-
struents is unmarked, [−, voice] in (2) cannot be anything but a stop by
default. So, the output should not include [−] either (see §3.8.3. for discussion).

5.2.2 Nasalization

Parallel to the occlusivization in (1), /r/ nasalizes in absolute initial position, (3).
(3) Medial liquid vs. initial nasal
Imperfective Perfective
yG-r6g(G)d n6g6d < /r6gg6d/ ‘touch’
 INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING 161

yG-r6f(G)s n6f6s < /r6ff6s/ ‘wind’

yG-r6md n6m6d < /r6mm6d/ ‘love’
r-nasalization results in a nasal, not in a nasalized liquid (*[r̃]). It implies oral
occlusion and more articulatory energy, which leads me to claim that nasalization
here is a form of strengthening. Note also that it occurs in other strengthening
contexts such as occlusivization. I assume that [−] in approximants is
marked and should accordingly be specified in them. So, the output includes
[−, nasal].
(4) Initial Nasalization (# r → n)
 +  →  −  / #___
 +   nasal 
 Coronal 

The difference between Initial Occlusivization, in (2), and Initial Nasalization,

in (4), is that, the former introduces [−, voice] while the latter introduces
[−, nasal]. In both, the resulting consonant is a stop, which expresses
strengthening. But [−] in obstruents is unmarked, so it is unspecified in
occlusivization.

5.3 Geminate strengthening

5.3.1 Occlusivization

A geminate /öö/ surfaces as a simple obstruent [b], Perfective of (5a), or [p],

Perfective of (5b). (See Chapter 2 for details of geminate devoicing and its
absence.)
(5) Nongeminate approximant vs. geminate obstruent
Imperfective Perfective
a. yG-d6ös d6b6s < /d6öö6s/ ‘enlarge’
b. yG-d6öGr d6p6r < /d6öö6r/ ‘add’
Degemination as in /d6öö6s/ → [d6b6s] applies to all stem-internal geminates. In
addition, /öö/ occlusivizes in all instances. (The verb t’6ö6t’ ‘has held’ is the only
exception to this generalization and I have no explanation for it). As was the
case in Initial Occlusivization in (2) above, Geminate Occlusivization transforms
[+] to [−, voice], as in (6a). In such cases, a /öö/ becomes a simple
voiced stop. (Irrelevant nodes and features are omitted for simplicity.)
162 SOUND MUTATIONS

(6) a. Geminate Occlusivization and Degemination (öö → b)

öö b
C C C

Root [+] Root [–]

Place Place Laryngeal

Labial Labial [voice]

It is shown in Chapter 2 that a doubly linked [voice] is allowed only if the stem-
final radical is an obstruent, as in d6b6s, (5a). In d6b6s, the [voice] of b is a
nonfinal laryngeal specification in the morpheme (the root) so it remains intact.
Otherwise, all voiced geminate obstruents of Chaha devoice, as in the Perfective
d6p6r, (5b). This can be represented as in (6b).
(6) b. Geminate Occlusivization, Devoicing and Degemination (öö → p)
öö b
C C C

Root [+] Root [–]

=

Place Place Laryngeal

Labial Labial [voice]

The unlicensed Laryngeal node in (6b) — it is unlicensed because it is final and
doubly linked as in d6p6r — delinks. So, the geminate occlusivizes, devoices and
degeminates resulting in the voiceless stop [p]. In this account, voiceless in
obstruents means delinking of the Laryngeal node, hence the absence of [voice].
See §2.7.1. for the constraint that prohibits a doubly linked final Laryngeal node
dominating [voice].

5.3.2 Nasalization

In line with occlusivization of a geminate /ö/, a geminate /r/ nasalizes. Moreover,

the usual stem-internal degemination takes place, as in /f6rr6m/ → [f6n6m],
below.
 INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING 163

(7) Nongeminate liquid vs. geminate nasal

Jussive Perfective
y6-frGm f6n6m < /f6rr6m/ ‘slice (e.g. a piece bread)’
y6-t’Grs t’6n6s < /t’6rr6s/ ‘break off a little piece’
y6-gr6z g6n6z < /g6rr6z/ ‘age’
y6-r6k’ an6k’ < /A6rr6k’/ ‘finish ()’
Nasalization implies oral closure, more energy and longer duration than [r]. All
of these characterize strengthening (see Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 95–9 for
an overview). This supports my idea that nasalization in Chaha is strengthening.
(8) Geminate Nasalization and Degemination (rr → n)
rr n
C C C

Root [+] Root [+]

[–cont] [nasal]
Geminate Nasalization and Degemination applies only to morpheme-internal
geminates, i.e. to a single /r/ linked to two adjacent C slots (not to C+C).
Geminates created by total assimilation across a morpheme boundary do not
degeminate, e.g. yG-m6xGr-n-a → yG-m6xGn-n-a ‘he advises her’. We will also see
next that neither degemination nor nasalization applies to geminates created
across morpheme boundaries.

5.3.3 Lateralization

When a stem-final /r/ is followed by a suffix-initial /r/, as in (9), we obtain the

lateral [l], a sound which exists only in this context and in a handful of loans
(see §4.9.2. for a discussion and a list of such words).
(9) Examples of geminates across morpheme boundaries
a. /yG-s6öGr-r-a/ → [yG-s6öGl-l-a] ‘He breaks  for her.’
/y-azGr-r-a/ → [y-azGl-l-a] ‘He carries (e.g. a baby) on
his back for her.’
/yG-c’6r-r-a/ → [yG-c’6l-l-a] ‘He loads (e.g. the mule) for
her.’
b. /yG-c’6rr-r-a/ → [yG-c’6l-l-a] ‘He begets for her
advantage.’
164 SOUND MUTATIONS

/yG-w6rr-r-a/ → [yG-w6l-l-a] ‘He nourishes (e.g. the bride)

for her.’
/y-a-c6rr-r-a/ → [y-a-c6l-l-a] ‘He brings  for her.’
The stem-final /r/ is a nongeminate in (9a) whereas it is a geminate in (9b).
(According to my analysis, this is not because some verbs of Chaha have stem-
final gemination but because these verbs are quadriradicals with a silent /I/ as in
yG-c’6rrGI → yG-c’6n ‘he begets’, see §4.7.) When followed by an r-initial suffix,
the geminate /rr/ of the stem simplifies but does not nasalize (or it nasalizes and
then the n-r becomes an [ll]). A stem-final /r/ (geminate or simple) becomes a
liquid if it is followed by a liquid-initial suffix, as in (9). But a stem-final /r/
nasalizes if it is followed by a nasal-initial suffix, e.g. yG-m6xGn-n-a ‘he advises
her’, i.e. the liquid or nasal value of the suffix is retained in all cases. Note also
that a stem-initial /r/ nasalizes when it is preceded by the placeless nasal, e.g.
a-N-r6g6d6 → a-n-n6g6d6 ‘he has not touched ’. What can be observed here
is that the liquid or nasal value of an affix is retained.
The r-initial suffix in (9) triggers lateralization of the stem /r/ (whether this
is a geminate or simple). So, both the simple and geminate /r/ turn into the
lateral [l].
(10) Lateralization ((r)r + r → ll)
(r)r r ll
(C) C + C C + C
( )
Root [+] Root [+] Root [+]

[–cont] [lateral]
My claim so far was that a doubly linked approximant becomes an obstruent stop
as in (6a, b) or a nasal stop as in (8). I assume that this claim holds also for [ll],
i.e. [ll] in Chaha is a lateral stop (expressed by [−, lateral]. Assuming that
Chaha [l] involves central closure (with a long duration as it always is a
geminate), I believe that analyzing it as [−] is correct. In this account,
[+] → [−] classifies lateralization with nasalization. See Paradis
(1992: 171) for arguments that [ll] in Fula is [−] but Ladefoged and
Maddieson (1996: 214) for an analysis that considers laterals as either approxi-
mants or fricatives. See also Chomsky and Halle (1968: 318) and Kenstowicz
(1994: 36) on the controversy concerning the [±] nature of [l].
Note that the features [−, lateral] of the output in (10) cannot be
obtained by spreading since /r/ (whether it belongs to a stem or a suffix) does
 INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING 165

not contain these features. So, it follows that [−, lateral] must be introduced
by rules.
In my analysis, a simplified geminate, as in (6a, b) and (8), is derived by
leftward spreading of the Root node. On the other hand, the surface geminate is
formed by fusing the two Root nodes whose C slots are separated by the mor-
pheme boundary. Possibly, the boundary blocks simplification. But in both cases,
we have strengthening in which [+] becomes a stop, namely an obstruent
stop in occlusivization, a nasal stop in nasalization and a lateral stop in
lateralization.

5.4 Post-N strengthening

Post-N strengthening affects /U, ö, r/. This set exhausts all nonnuclear approxi-
mants of Chaha found in stem-initial position, i.e. where Post-N strengthening
can apply. The other member of nonnuclear approximants is /I/ but it is not
found stem-initially. That /ö/ but no obstruent is a member of this set supports
my claim that /ö/ is an approximant.

5.4.1 Nasalization of a post-N /r/

A post-N /r/ nasalizes (i.e. becomes [n]), as in (11a). But /r/ in (11b, c) does not
nasalize regardless of the preceding /m/ showing that nasalization occurs only if
the preceding nasal is the placeless /N/. (In fact, the presence of /m/ in a stem
blocks an otherwise applicable nasalization, cf. y6-rgGd → y6-]gGd ‘let him touch
!’ vs. y6-rm6d (not *y6-mm6d) ‘let him love someone!’, see §4.5.) The /r/
does not nasalize after other consonants either, cf. (11d).
(11) Nasalization of r only after /N/
a. a-N-r6g6d6 (→ ann6g6d6) ‘He has not touched .’
b. a-mr6g6d6-m (→ *amm6g6d6m) ‘He has made someone act
crazy.’
c. yG-f6t’Gm-r-a (→ *yG-f6t’Gm-n-a) ‘He closes  for her.’
d. a-t-r6g6d6-m ‘He has made someone touch
.’
Nasalization of a Post-N r, as in (11a), creates a nonsimplifying geminate nn.
That simplification does not occur may be given the same account as lateralizat-
ion, i.e. the morpheme boundary blocks degemination. Given the presence of a
post-m /r/ in (11b, c), nasalization of the stem-initial /r/ in (11a) cannot be seen
166 SOUND MUTATIONS

as the spreading of [nasal] from the prefix to /r/. It should rather be seen as the
fusion of /N-/ and /r/.
(12) Nasalization of a Post-N r (N+r → nn)
N r nn
C + C C + C

Root [+] Root [+] Root [+]

[–cont] [nasal] [–cont] [nasal]

Since the result of fusion (i.e. [−, nasal, +]) is an impossible sound
(approximant segments have no blockage by definition) the [+] also
changes. Nasalization of a Post-N r, in (12), parallels lateralization, (10). In both,
the sounds are fused and doubly linked and degemination does not apply.

5.4.2 Occlusivization of a post-N /ö/

The phoneme /ö/ occlusivizes also when it is the second member of a nasal-
obstruent homorganic cluster, as in (13a). In all other contexts, i.e. after vowels
and nonnasal consonants, cf. (13b), a noninitial nongeminated /ö/ remains an
approximant [ö].
(13) Post-N [b] vs. postoral [ö]
a. a-m-b6dGr ‘I will not be first.’
a-tG-mb6r ‘Let her not exist!’
b. a-t-ö6d6r ‘She will not be first.’
a-t-r6öGr ‘She will not exist.’
The homorganic cluster is formed by leftward spreading of the Place node of /ö/.
I also claim that Occlusivization of a Post-N ö is not triggered by spreading a
feature from /N/ to /ö/. In fact, as depicted in (14), no feature spreads from /N/
to /ö/.
 INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING 167

(14) Occlusivization of a Post-N ö (N+ö → mb)

N ö m b
C C C C

Root [+] Root [+] → Root [+] Root [-]

[–cont] [–cont] Laryngeal

[nasal] [nasal]
[voice]
Place Place

Labial Labial
Occlusivization in (14) is a byproduct of the double linking, which is created by
spreading the Place of /ö/ to /N/. The generalization is that a doubly linked
bilabial approximant becomes a voiced obstruent. The N obtains Labial from /ö/
whereas /ö/ becomes a voiced stop because its Place is doubly linked. In other
words, due to double linking, the [+] of /ö/ becomes [−, voice], which
also is [−] by default.
In contrast to my proposal, one could claim that [b] obtains [−, voice]
from the preceding nasal (one cannot claim the [−] of [b] to originate from
the [+] nasal). However, such an analysis cannot offer a unified account for
[b] being a voiced stop even in the absence of a preceding nasal in b6s6r ‘meat’
and z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’. In addition, I have shown in Chapter 1 that sonorants
do not trigger voicing assimilation, e.g. yG-t-man6x ‘he gives up’. So voicing in
[b] cannot originate from the nasal. Two more arguments, based on the absence
of post-m liquid nasalization discussed in §5.4.1 and the absence of post-N
obstruent strengthening discussed in §5.4.4, support the claim that no feature
spreads from a nasal to a following segment.
The examples in (15) show that the nasal prefix and the nasalized /r/ of the
stem agree in Place with the following consonant. They receive the default place
Coronal when they are followed by a vowel.
(15) Nasal prefixes and nasalized /r/ are placeless
Nasal prefix (First Person) Nasalized /r/
a-m-b6dGr ‘I will not be first.’ tG-mb6r ‘Let her exist!’
a-X-f6t’Gr ‘I will not lie.’ tG-XfGk’ ‘Let her cut off a hunk!’
a-n-t’6k’Gr ‘I will not hide .’ tG-nt’Gk’ ‘Let her snatch  away!’
a-n-at’Gö ‘I will not wash .’ n6k’6t’6-cG-m ‘She has kicked .’
a-\-ky6s6s ‘I will not accuse.’ tG-z6\gy ‘Let her talk!’
a-]-k’6öGr ‘I will not plant .’ tG-]g6s ‘Let her reign!’
168 SOUND MUTATIONS

The /N-/ and the nasalized /r/ get their labiality and velarity from a following
consonant, as in (14). The spreading of Place is a structure-building operation
since the Place of the nasals is not contrastive as they all derive from /N-/ or /r/.
(The /N-/ in (15) marks first person while a- marks negation, see Petros
1996a: 139–41.)

5.4.3 Occlusivization of a post-N /U/

The underlying initial radical of the stems in (16) is the bilabial /ö/ followed by
the labiodorsal /U/. The phoneme /U/ docks on /ö/, as it normally does, creating
a complex consonant /öw/. In addition, /öw/ occlusivizes because it is initial in the
Affirmative and post-N in the Prohibitive and Negative.1 This is parallel to the
behavior of a plain /ö/.
(16) Affirmative Prohibitive Negative
bw6n6s Gm-bw6n6s a-m-bw6n6s ‘has felt loneliness’
The initial radical of the stems in (17) is /U/, as shown by the Affirmative.
When /N/ is prefixed to U-initial stems, /N/ becomes [m] and /U/ becomes [bw],
as in the Prohibitive and Negative. It is difficult to say whether [m] in [mbw] is
round or not.
(17) Affirmative Prohibitive Negative
war Gm-bwar a-m-bwar ‘has spent the day’
was Gm-bwas a-m-bwas ‘has lent an object’
wat’ Gm-bwat’ a-m-bwat’ ‘has swallowed’
wGy6 Gm-bwGy6 a-m-bwGy6 ‘has gone down’
w6k’a Gm-bw6k’a a-m-bw6k’a ‘has cut slightly’
w6k’6r Gm-bw6k’6r a-m-bw6k’6r ‘has agitated’
w6k’6s Gm-bw6k’6s a-m-bw6k’6s ‘has blamed’
w6ka Gm-bw6ka a-m-bw6ka ‘has pierced’
w6nd Gm-bw6nd a-m-bw6nd ‘has descended’
w6r Gm-bw6r a-m-bw6r ‘has gone’
w6w6 Gm-bw6w6 a-m-bw6w6 ‘has done an evil act’
w6s6d Gm-bw6s6d a-m-bw6s6d ‘has taken’

1. In the Prohibitive, an epenthetic G is inserted before /N/ even when /N/ is followed by a vowel as
in Gn-ag6d6 ‘let him not tie!’. It is suggested in §9.4.3 that the insertion of G may be accounted for by
assuming that /N-/ here is a simplified geminate. As I argued in Petros (1996a: 141), /N-/ is a Past
tense marker and the negative prefixes are Ø- and a- in the Prohibitive and Negative respectively.
 INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING 169

w6t’a Gm-bw6t’a a-m-bw6t’a ‘has ascended’

w6t’6k’ Gm-bw6t’6k’ a-m-bw6t’6k’ ‘has fallen’
w6t’6r Gm-bw6t’6r a-m-bw6t’6r ‘has invented’
w6t6r Gm-bw6t6r a-m-bw6t6r ‘has drawn tight’
w6za Gm-bw6za a-m-bw6za ‘has shined’
The [b] in (17) does not belong to the stem in  as shown by its absence in the
Affirmative. Similarly, [b] is absent when the stems take a nonnasal prefix, e.g.
a-t-war ‘do not spend the day!’ and y6-war ‘let him spend the day!’ In addition,
[w] in the Affirmative is not derived by deleting /ö/ from /öw/ since an underly-
ing initial /öU/ in Chaha surfaces as [bw] (not [w]), as shown in (16) above. Such
a [b] is present also when /U/ is immediately preceded by the first person prefix
/N-/ as in tG-N-U6t’a → tGmbw6t’a ‘while I go out’ and tG-N-U6t’a-n6 →
tGmbw6t’an6 ‘while we go out’. We already know that /N/ is placeless from forms
such as Gm-b6na ‘let him not eat!’, Gn-t6n6 ‘let him not swear!’, G]-k6na ‘let him
not ascend!’ and Gn-a-x6na ‘let him not shout!’ These examples also show that
[b] in the Prohibitive and Negative is not part of the prefix.
In the preceding section, I have claimed on independent grounds that when
the Place node of /ö/ is doubly linked, /ö/ becomes a voiced stop. I now claim
that this same phenomenon is responsible for the occlusivization of /U/ in (17).
In all cases, [bw] results from occlusivization of a post-N U (i.e. /U/ → [bw]),
represented in (18) below. The spreading of Place from /U/ to /N/ creates an
approximant with a doubly linked Place node, which in Chaha is not licit. As
was the case with the Occlusivization of a Post-N ö, (14), when the Place node
of the labiodorsal approximant /U/ is doubly linked, [+] becomes [−,
voice]. In this account, similar to Occlusivization of a Post-N ö, Occlusivization
of a Post-N U is achieved by spreading the Place node of the approximant to a
preceding /N/:
(18) Occlusivization of a Post-N U (N+U → mbw)
N U m bw
C C C C

Root [+] Root [+] Root [+] Root [–]

[–cont] [–cont] Laryngeal

[nasal] [nasal]
[voice]
Place Place

Labial Dorsal Labial Dorsal

170 SOUND MUTATIONS

Here, too, no feature spreads from /N/ to /U/ but the Place of /U/ spreads to /N/,
and that changes /N/ to [m]. Furthermore, as was the case for /ö/, when the Place
node of a Labial approximant is doubly linked it becomes an obstruent stop. An
obstruent stop that includes the place specifications of /U/ is the labiodorsal stop
[bw]. Accordingly, Occlusivization of a Post-N U gives evidence that [−,
voice] in [b], as well as in [bw], are introduced.
My conclusions are twofold. First, the approximant consonants (i.e. /ö, r/)
are strengthened when they are initial or when their Root node is doubly linked.
Second, all post-N approximants (i.e. /ö, U, I, r/) are strengthened. The generaliza-
tions hold with all available data. But we cannot verify if a /NI/ sequence would
yield the predicted [^j] ( [^3ë]) because no stem begins with /I/ and no stem
ends with (or contains) /N/.

5.4.4 Post-N continuant obstruents

When /N/ is followed by a continuant obstruent (/f, s, z, x/) either the /N/ forms
a homorganic cluster with the obstruent or it vocalizes (i.e. it nasalizes the preceding
vowel), as in (19a). But /N/ does not trigger strengthening of the following
obstruent. The stem-initial consonants in (19b) are stops independent of /N/.
(19) Affirmative Prohibitive Negative
a. x6na G]-x6na/ --x6na
ı̃ a-]-x6na/ã-x6na ‘has forbidden, put’
s6na Gn-s6na/ --s6na
ı̃ a-n-s6na/ã-s6na ‘has reached’
z6na Gn-z6na/ --z6na
ı̃ a-n-z6na/ã-z6na ‘has sowed’
f6ta GX-f6ta/ --f6ta
ı̃ a-X-f6ta/ã-f6ta ‘has untied’
b. k’6na G]-k’6na a-]-k’6na ‘has been willful’
k6na G]-k6na a-]-k6na ‘has ascended’
g6pa G]-g6pa a-]-g6pa ‘has entered’
t’6na Gn-t’6na a-n-t’6na ‘has called, hated’
t6n6 Gn-t6n6 a-n-t6n6 ‘has sworn’
d6na Gn-d6na a-n-d6na ‘has conceived’
n6pa Gn-n6pa a-n-n6pa ‘has split’
b6na Gm-b6na a-m-b6na ‘has eaten’
m6na Gm-m6na a-m-m6na ‘has filled’
The nasal-obstruent homorganic cluster receives similar treatment with the
preceding cases in that it derives by spreading the Place of the stem-initial
consonant to /N/. The only difference here is that the post-N obstruents are not
strengthened. The fact that they do not become stops shows that [−] does
not spread from /N/ to a following obstruent. This in turn supports my claim that
post-N strengthening is not triggered by spreading [−, voice/nasal] from /N/
to a following approximant.
 INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING 171

5.5 Approximant strengthening vs. obstruent strengthening

Occlusivization, nasalization and lateralization can be viewed as instances of

approximant strengthening, in which deletion of a feature found below the Root
node (such as [+] or [voice]) is not an issue because the targets (i.e.
approximants) are unspecified for continuancy and voicing. Note that these three
processes do not involve delinking place features. If we assume (in line with
Schein and Steriade 1986, McCarthy 1988 and Clements and Hume 1995) that
major class features are directly assigned to the Root node the change from
[+] to [−] (i.e. /ö/ → [b]) is a process that affects the Root node
itself and does not involve delinking of a feature dominated by the Root.
On the other hand, /x/ is [+] and its strengthened allophone [k] is
derived by delinking [+]. Note that /x/ becoming [k] is another case of
strengthening. Similarly, voiced obstruents are [voice] and their voiceless allo-
phones are derived by delinking [voice]. Note also that devoicing can be seen as
another case of strengthening. See, for example, Ladefoged and Maddieson
(1996: 95–6) for an overview of research equating voicelessness with tense (or
fortis). Let us call these changes (i.e. strengthening /x/ to [k] and devoicing /g/
to [k]) obstruent strengthening. In my analysis, the obstruent strengthening cases
are attained by feature-delinking operations since they involve delinking of either
[+] or [voice]. Let us now discuss the differences between approximant
strengthening and obstruent strengthening.
Both occlusivization and nasalization (approximant strengthening) apply in
word-initial position (cf. b6s6r, n6k6s) whereas no strengthening of /x/ (i.e.
obstruent strengthening) applies in that context (cf. x6t6ö). Obstruent strengthen-
ing depends on the nature of a following radical. For instance, as we have seen
in Chapter 3, /x/ strengthens before a continuant obstruent, e.g. yG-r6k(G)s ‘he
bites’, whereas it does not before a sonorant yG-s6xGr ‘he gets drunk’. The same
generalization holds for geminate devoicing, cf. z6g6d ‘has remembered’ vs. z6k6r
‘has jumped’. The underlying /g/ in z6g6d does not devoice because it is
followed by a laryngeal specification whereas /g/ in z6k6r devoices because it is
followed by [0voice]. Nevertheless, approximant strengthening (occlusivization
of /öö/ (i.e. [+] → [−]) and nasalization of /rr/) does not take the
nature of the following radical into account. These generalizations show that the
applications of approximant strengthening do not take the nature of a following
radical into account while those of obstruent strengthening do. In other words,
approximant strengthening observes restrictions that are only related to the
skeletal tier (such as double linking) whereas obstruent strengthening observes
172 SOUND MUTATIONS

restrictions related to both the skeletal tier to which the segment is linked and
segmental features of the surrounding radicals.
A doubly linked /ö/ is strengthened to [b, p] by Geminate Occlusivization.
Similarly, a doubly linked /r/ is strengthened to [n] by Geminate Nasalization.
Let us now see if a consonant in the so-called long-distance geminates (CiVCi)
is doubly linked with respect to geminate occlusivization and nasalization. First,
let us assume that a consonant in a CiVCi configuration is doubly linked, as in
(20). Despite the double-linking, /ö/ in (20a) and /r/ in (20b) are not strength-
ened. This shows that Ci in CiVCi is not considered a doubly linked segment
with respect to approximant strengthening.
(20) a. C V C b. C V C c. C V C d. C V C

ö r d x
[+] [+] [voice] [+]
yG-k’6öGö yG-ö6r Gr yG-g6dGd yG-s6kGk
‘He shaves.’ ‘He flies.’ ‘He digs a hole.’ ‘He drives a peg.’
Concerning Geminate Devoicing I have shown that a doubly linked [voice] is
unlicensed when it is the final voicing specification in the root. Nevertheless, the
doubly linked [voice] in (20c) does not delink regardless of it being final. So the
representation in (20c) is problematic for geminate devoicing. On the other hand,
concerning /x/ strengthening I have shown that [+] delinks from a doubly
linked /x/. So the representation in (20d) is supported by geminate strengthening.
Nevertheless, we have seen that [+] delinks also when it is followed by a
[+] radical. But /x/ in (20d) is not followed by a [+] radical and yet
its [+] delinks. So the representation in (20d) is problematic for strengthen-
ing of a precontinuant /x/. In this account, the doubly linked representations
(20a–c) are problematic for nasalization, occlusivization and devoicing. On the
other hand, (20d) is supported by strengthening of a geminate /x/ but it is
problematic for strengthening of a precontinuant /x/. Now consider (21) in which
the doubly linked representations of (20) are conflated:
(21) a. C V C b. C V C
| | | |
ö ö r r
[+] [+] [+] [+]
yG-k’6öGö yG-ö6rGr
‘He shaves.’ ‘He flies.’
 INITIAL, GEMINATE AND POST-N STRENGTHENING 173

c. C V C d. C V C
| | | |
d d x x
[voice] [voice] [+] [+]
yG-g6dGd yG-s6kGk
‘He digs a hole.’ ‘He drives a peg.’
Here, no [+] is doubly linked so occlusivization in (21a) and nasalization
in (21b) cannot apply. In addition, no [voice] is doubly linked so devoicing
cannot apply. Furthermore, the first /x/ in (21d) must become fortis because a
Precontinuant [x] is not allowed. So does the second one because of the need to
respect its identity with the first one. So, (21d) is compatible with obstruent
strengthening. In this account, we can state that Geminate Occlusivization,
Geminate Nasalization, Geminate Devoicing and No Precontinuant [x] favor the
representations in (21). There are at least two ways of deriving (21). The first is
Tier Conflation, cf. e.g. McCarthy (1986a, b), and the second is considering Ci
in CiVCi a copy, cf. e.g. Angoujard (1988), Gafos (1996) and Rose (1997). The
real differences between these two views have yet to be explored.

5.6 Conclusion

In this chapter I expressed the interaction of the main processes discussed in

Chapter 2 (i.e. devoicing), III (i.e. strengthening of /x/) and IV (i.e. nasalization).
In addition, I have presented the occlusivization of /U/ and shown its similarity
with the occlusivization of /ö/. I also discussed the assimilation of /N/ with a
following consonant or vocoid and the role of assimilation on approximant
strengthening. I briefly discussed the differences between obstruent strengthening
and approximant strengthening.
Even though both types of strengthening can be conditioned by double
linking of the Place node, the process of strengthening itself does not affect
place features. In the following section I will present cluster simplification in
totally reduplicated verbs where place features are also affected. I will argue that
the markedness of the place of the consonant in question determines whether it
should be simplified or not. I will also show that compensatory gemination
resulting from simplification supports my analysis of geminate devoicing/
nasalization and degemination.
 C 6

On the Articulators of Consonants

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter I discuss the markedness of the three articulators (Coronal, Labial,
Dorsal) and their hierarchical organization. In §6.2 I propose a hierarchical
structure for the articulators and show some advantages of the proposal. In §6.3
I present facts from cluster restriction, which suggest that Coronal is the least
and Labial the most marked articulator. In §6.4 I show that cluster restriction
does not necessarily apply when the second member is [r].

6.2 Hierarchical organization of the articulators

While Rice (1994: 192ff.) argues for the hierarchically structured representation
of articulators given in (1a), Browman and Goldstein (1989: 223), Keyser and
Stevens (1994: 212) and Clements and Hume (1995: 290) suggest a representation
similar to the one in (1b) based on other factors. There is also a third alternative
in which the three articulators are directly dominated by Place, but see Rice
(1992: 196ff.) for arguments against it.
(1) a. Place b. place

Peripheral (Coronal) [labial] lingual

Dorsal (Labial) [coronal] [dorsal]

In (1a) Dorsal and Labial form the subconstituent Peripheral whereas in (1b)
Coronal and Dorsal form the subconstituent Lingual. I believe that both may be
correct hierarchical structures of Place and that the option given in (2), where
Dorsal is dominated by both Lingual and Peripheral, can reconcile them.
(Structures in which a single feature may be dominated by two nodes have also
been proposed in Piggott 1992 for [nasal] and McCarthy 1994 for [pharyngeal].)
176 SOUND MUTATIONS

(2) Place

Peripheral (Lingual)

Labial Dorsal (Coronal)

Labialization in Chaha targets peripherals whereas I-triggered palatalization
targets linguals. The structure in (2) gives a natural explanation for this asymme-
try. The Peripheral node is the target for labialization while the Lingual node is
the target for I-triggered palatalization. This justifies the constituent Lingual as
well as Peripheral, and the idea that Dorsal should be dominated by both.
The parentheses in (1a) and (2) indicate the unmarked nodes at each level.
In (1a), Coronal is unmarked under Place while Labial is unmarked under
Peripheral. According to this structure, Coronal is the least and Dorsal the most
marked articulator. On the other hand, in (2), Coronal is the unmarked articulator
under Lingual and Lingual is the unmarked organizing node under Place. This
singles out Coronal as the least marked and Labial as the most marked of the
three articulators. Accordingly, Coronal is the least marked in both (1a) and (2)
whereas the most marked is Dorsal in (1a) and Labial in (2). An argument in
favor of the claim that Labial is more marked than Dorsal is given in the
following section where a class of verbs allowing a dorsal-labial cluster disallows
a labial-dorsal cluster. (See also Alderete et al 1997 for a view that Labial is
more marked than Dorsal.)

6.3 Cluster simplification in totally reduplicated verbs

Some totally reduplicated biradical verbs delete their antepenultimate consonant

in the Imperative, e.g. /z6mzGm/ → [z6sGm] ‘be wet!’ while others do not, e.g.
z6rzGr (not *z6sGr) ‘cut meat into strips!’1 In addition, the penult devoices when
the antepenult deletes, as in z6sGm, whereas it does not when the antepenult is
maintained, as in z6rzGr. In this section, I will identify the determining factor for
the deletion of the antepenult and discuss what it tells us about markedness in
place features.

1. Deletion also occurs in the Jussive, which shares a stem-internal C16C2C1GC2 pattern with the
Imperative but differs in having person prefixes. It should be known that there is nothing special
about these forms except their common C16C2C1GC2 pattern.
 ON THE ARTICULATORS OF CONSONANTS 177

6.3.1 Labial-coda deletion in a cluster

The data in (3) show that a labial deletes in a labial-obstruent cluster, as in

/t’6ft’Gf/ → [t’6t’(G)f] ‘dump!’ The labial coda deletes regardless of whether the
following onset is a coronal, (3a), or a dorsal, (3b).2
(3) Labial-coda deletion in verbs with a C16C2C1GC2 pattern
a. When the following onset is a coronal
/t’6ft’Gf/ → [t’6t’(G)f] ‘Dump!’
/z6fzGf/ → [z6z(G)f] ‘Put to soak!’
/c’6fc’Gf/ → [c’6c’(G)f] ‘Destroy a great number!’
/d6fdGf/ → [d6d(G)f] ‘Mix flour with water!’
/t6ftGf/ → [t6t(G)f] ‘Dip bread into pepper!’
/d6ödGö/ → [d6tGö] ‘Patch!’
/s6ösGö/ → [s6sGö] ‘Collect!’
/t’6öt’Gö/ → [t’6t’Gö] ‘Empty!’
/t6ötGö/ → [t6tGö] ‘Tie up!’
/t’6mt’Gm/ → [t’6t’Gm] ‘Roll !’
/d6mdGm/ → [d6tGm] ‘Conclude!’
/z6mzGm/ → [z6sGm] ‘Be wet!’
b. When the following onset is a dorsal
/a-N-k’6fk’Gf/ → [a-]-k’6k’(G)f] ‘Sift!’
/ky6fkyGf/ → [ky6ky(G)f] ‘Drizzle!’
/a-N-k’6ök’Gö/ → [a-]-k’6k’Gö] ‘Prune!’
/N-g6ögGö/ → [G]-g6gGö] ‘Rumble!’
/a-k’w6mk’wGm/ → [a-k’w6k’wGm] ‘Toast!’
/g6mgGm/ → [g6kGm] ‘Chip the rims!’
/k6mkGm/ → [k6kGm] ‘Trim!’
As can be seen from (3), the labial antepenultimate radicals /f, ö, m/ delete when
they are the first member of a cluster. Note that the stem-final /f, ö, m/ in (3) do
not delete, showing that a labial coda deletes only when it is the first member of

2. The rounded labials [f w, öw, mw] are not found as final radicals in totally reduplicated verbs. This
remains an unexplained gap in an analysis where [f w], [öw] or [mw] is analyzed as a single phoneme.
However, their absence can easily be accounted for in an analysis where each of them is biphonemic
by assuming that words such as /a-k’w6mk’wGm/ → [a-k’w6k’wGm], from (3b), are formed from –k’Um
and that /U/ labializes the nearest preceding labial or velar. Thus, rounded consonants can only be
expected to appear at the beginning of a totally reduplicated word. The generalizations also hold for
palatalized consonants. (I write the underlying complex consonants as a single radical for simplicity.)
178 SOUND MUTATIONS

a cluster. Moreover, deletion does not occur when /f, ö, m/ (or any other radical)
is an onset, as in the Perfective of these verbs, e.g. [t’Gf6t’6f] (not *[t’Gt’6f],
*[t’6t’6f]) ‘has dumped’ and [gGm6k6m] (not *[gGk6m], *[g6k6m]) ‘has chipped
the rim’.
Labial-obstruent cluster simplification applies in (3) not because such
clusters are banned everywhere in Chaha. For example, labials do not delete in
verbs such as y6-ft’6r ‘let it be ready!’ and y6-mg6r ‘let it suppurate!’ Deletion
takes place in (3) possibly because the content of the deleted segment can be
recovered from the remainder of the paradigm. The deleted antepenult is
compensated by devoicing as in /z6mzGm/ → /z6zzGm/ → [z6sGm] ‘be wet!’ but
devoicing does not occur if the final radical is an obstruent /z6fzGf/ → /z6zzGf/ →
[z6zGf] (not *[z6sGf])‘put  to soak!’ (see §2.3.3). This supports my claim in §2.7.1
that geminates devoice only if they are the final laryngeal specification in the Root.

6.3.2 No coronal-coda deletion in a cluster

A coronal-coda is maintained in the Imperative, as in g6zgGz ‘be cold!’, and

f6t’fGt’ ‘throw  to the ground!’ regardless of the point of articulation of the
following onset. The coronal antepenultimate radicals of (4a) are followed by a
dorsal and those of (4b) by a labial. In both cases, the coronal antepenults do not
delete. (See Yip 1991 and the references therein about the special status of
coronals concerning cluster simplification and the coda condition.)
(4) No coronal-coda deletion in verbs with a C16C2C1GC2 pattern3
a. When the following onset is a dorsal
g6zgGz ‘Be cold!’
g6sgGs ‘Go fast!’
gw6zgwGz ‘Spread!’
a-]-gw6dgwGd ‘Dig!’
a-]-kw6tkwGt ‘Weed!’
k6tkGt ‘Crush up !’
k’6t’k’Gt’ ‘Hammer, pound!’
k6skGs ‘Smash !’
a-]-k’6sk’Gs ‘Germinate!’

3. I have claimed in §1.3.1 that [b] is a strengthened /ö/ and that there is no underlying /b/.
However, the medial [b] in words such as b6t’bGt’ ‘stir violently!’, from below, is not in a strengthen-
ing context as it is not initial, post-N or geminate. Therefore, a stop is unexpected. I assume that the
medial /ö/ becomes a stop to maintain its identity with the initial stop.
 ON THE ARTICULATORS OF CONSONANTS 179

k’6sk’Gs ‘Wake someone up, arouse!’

gw6sgwGs ‘Move  to and fro in fire!’
a-k’w6zk’wGz ‘Remain underdeveloped!’
b. When the following onset is a labial
f6t’fGt’ ‘Throw  to the ground!’
b6t’bGt’ ‘Stir violently!’
b6sbGs ‘Be putrid, rotten!’
f6sfGs ‘Disintegrate !’
f6tfGt ‘Crumble !’
m6t’mGt’ ‘Be rotten!’
m6zmGz ‘Worry constantly!’
Coronal antepenults do not delete in onset position, as in the Perfectives gGz6g6z
‘has been cold’ and fGt’6f6t’ ‘has thrown  to the ground’. Labials do not delete
either in that context, e.g. y-a-t’mat’Gm ‘let him wind around!’ But the fact that
coronal antepenults do not delete before a consonant makes them different from
labials. This shows that a coronal is licit as the first member of a cluster such as
zg and t’f in totally reduplicated verbs. Naturally, it follows from my analysis
that the absence of deletion in (4) entails the absence of compensatory devoicing.

6.3.3 Dorsal-coda deletion in a cluster and its absence

Now consider the behavior of dorsal antepenultimate radicals in the Imperative

of totally reduplicated verbs. As can be seen below, a dorsal coda deletes when
the following onset is a coronal, (5a), whereas it persists when the following
onset is a labial, (5b).
(5) The role of a following onset on dorsal-coda deletion
a. Dorsal-coda deletion when the following onset is a coronal
/a-z6gzGg/ → [a-z6z(G)g] ‘Throw  in a spiral motion!’
/d6gdGg/ → [d6d(G)g] ‘Fill completely!’
/s6gsGg/ → [s6s(G)g] ‘Stuff in, insert to fill an opening!’
/s6xsGx/ → [s6s(G)x] ‘Grind slightly with the pestle (to
shell)!’
/a-N-s6xsGx/ → [a-n-s6s(G)x] ‘Pant!’
/a-N-t6ktGk/ → [a-n-t6t(G)k] ‘Boil, make bubbles by boiling!’
/t’6k’t’Gk’/ → [t’6t’(G)k’] ‘Squeeze in a container!’
/c’6k’c’Gk’/ → [c’6c’(G)k’] ‘Nag!’
/s6k’sGk’/ → [s6s(G)k’] ‘Squeeze in a pot!’
/z6k’zGk’/ → [z6z(G)k’] ‘Turn upside-down, lower!’
180 SOUND MUTATIONS

b. No dorsal-coda deletion when the following onset is a labial

f6gfGg *[f6f(G)g] ‘Rub, scrub with soap!’
f6k’fGk’ *[f6f(G)k’] ‘Scrub, scour!’
b6k’bGk’ *[b6b(G)k’] ‘Become too ripe!’
m6xmGx *[m6m(G)x] ‘Bash repeatedly!’
m6k’mGk’ *[m6m(G)k’] ‘Eat  juicy!’
As can be observed, dorsal radicals delete if they form a dorsal-coronal cluster,
(5a), whereas they remain if they form a dorsal-labial cluster, (5b). In spite of
the antepenult deletion in (5a), the final obstruent radical precludes compensatory
devoicing.
Deletion in (5a) and its absence in (5b) show that, unlike labial codas
(which always delete as shown in (3)) and coronal codas (which never delete as
shown in (4)), dorsal codas delete depending on the Place of the following onset.
However, as was the case with labials and coronals, dorsal antepenultimate
radicals do not delete if they are onsets, as in the Perfectives a-zg6z6g ‘has
thrown  in a spiral motion’ and fGg6f6g ‘has rubbed’.

6.3.4 Summary

The generalizations attained in (3) to (5) indicate that clusters in the totally
reduplicated verbs of Chaha are subject to the following restrictions.
Table 6.1. Clusters restrictions in totally reduplicated verbs
from (3) from (4) from (5)
a. *labial-coronal coronal-dorsal *dorsal-coronal
b. *labial-dorsal coronal-labial dorsal-labial

The simplifications in the totally reduplicated verbs show that: (a) labial-obstru-
ent clusters (e.g. *[ft’], *[mg]) are illicit, as the labial codas delete in (3a, b), (b)
coronals are licit as the first member of any cluster, as the coronal codas do not
delete in (4a, b), and (c) a dorsal-coronal obstruent cluster (e.g. *[gz]) is illicit,
as the dorsal codas delete in (5a), whereas a dorsal-labial cluster (e.g. [gf]) is
licit, as the dorsal codas do not delete in (5b).
Assuming that the coda of a reduplicated verb is licit only when it is less
marked than the following onset, the data support my claim, stated in §6.2, that
Coronal is the least and Labial the most marked articulator. (See Yip 1991 and
the references therein on Coda Condition — especially the placelessness of coro-
nals.)
 ON THE ARTICULATORS OF CONSONANTS 181

6.4 Totally reduplicated verbs containing the liquid /r/

Some totally reduplicated verbs containing an antepenultimate stop (nasal or

obstruent) and a liquid penult are given below. It can be seen that no antepenult
deletes when the penult is [r].
(6) No deletion in a stop-liquid cluster
a. A labial antepenult
y-a-r6mrGm ‘Let him make  (e.g. wGsa-bread) soft!’
b. A coronal antepenult
y6-r6t’rGt’ ‘Let him shake  violently!’
c. A dorsal antepenult
y6-r6grGg ‘Let him covet!’
y-a-r6k’rGk’ ‘Let him plant (a sword) in the ground!’
The place of /r/ (whether it is coronal or placeless) is less marked than labial and
dorsal. It then follows from our discussion so far that the clusters in (6a, c)
should not be allowed as their second member is less marked than the first one.
This prediction is confirmed by the following metathesis applying to the forms
of (6), though the metathesis is optional.4
(7) Optional metathesis to avoid a stop-liquid cluster
a. y-a-r6mrGm ‘Let him make  flexible!’
b. /y6-r6t’rGt’/ → [y6-rt’6rt’] ‘Let him oscillate!’
c. /y6-r6grGg/ → [y6-rg6rg] ‘Let him covet!’
/y-a-r6k’rGk’/ → [y-a-rk’6rk’] ‘Let him dig a hole!’
In (7b, c) the [6] of the stem and the antepenultimate consonant undergo metathe-
sis, which breaks the stop-liquid cluster. The onset [r]’s of [y6-r6t’rGt’] become
codas in [y6-rt’6rt’]. The [G], which in [y6-r6t’rGt’] is needed to separate the last
three consonants, is not needed in [y6-rt’6rt’]. In one verb, even radicals can
metathesize, as [y-a-frafGr] and [y-a-rfarf] ‘let him make dirty!’, resulting in free
variation. Both types of metathesis show that there is a tendency to avoid a stop-

4. It is also possible to assume that the stop-liquid clusters do not simplify because their first
member is not a coda. In fast speech, an epenthetic vowel does not break up a word-initial CC if the
second term is a sonorant, e.g. [gr6t6m] ‘has cut in two’ and [t’öan6r] ‘has folded’. In addition,
Prunet (1996b: 184ff.) gives arguments showing that even in cases where the CC is separated by [G],
e.g. [gGr6t6m] ‘has cut in two’ and [t’Göan6r] ‘has folded’, that [G] functions as if it has no V slot. In
other words, the first two consonants in [gGr6t6m] are phonologically adjacent. This suggests that, at
least at some level of representation, C1C2 (where C2 is a sonorant) is a branching onset, but I will
not deal with this controversial issue anymore in this book.
182 SOUND MUTATIONS

liquid cluster and, instead, form a liquid-stop cluster. This confirms the proposal
that the first member of a cluster should be less marked than the second member.
The following C1C2C1C2 verbs contain a liquid-antepenult [r] followed by
a nonliquid penult. The list shows that both members of the cluster are preserved.
(8) No liquid-coda deletion in verbs with a C16C2C1GC2 pattern
a. When the following onset is a coronal
t’6rt’Gr ‘Be eaten by worms!’
a-n-t’6rt’Gr ‘Hang ()!’
t6rtGr ‘Tear !’
d6ndGr ‘Be stout!’
d6rdGr ‘Stamp!’
s6rsGr ‘Scrape to level!’
z6rzGr ‘Cut meat into strips, change money!’
a-^-c’6rc’Gr ‘Pour little by little!’
c6rcGr ‘Retail!’
w6rwGr ‘Level the ground!’
b. When the following onset is a labial
a-m-b6rbGr ‘Make fluffy!’
f6rfGr ‘Breed worms!’
m6rmGr ‘Be skinny!’
c. When the following onset is a dorsal
a-]-gw6rgwGr ‘Roar!’
gw6rgwGr ‘Burrow!’
k’6rk’Gr ‘Prevent!’
The liquid [r] is licit as the first member of a cluster irrespective of whether the
second consonant is a coronal, a labial or a dorsal. Given our discussion, this
shows that [r] also is less marked than labial and dorsal consonants.

6.5 Conclusion

I have proposed a hierarchical structure for the three articulators and shown that
the hierarchy naturally expresses not only their markedness but also the grouping
of dorsals with labials in some processes and with coronals in others, even in the
same language. I have also shown that cluster simplification in totally reduplicat-
ed verbs, which is assumed to be determined by the markedness of the segments
in the cluster, supports this proposal. When the least marked segments (coronals)
appear in the coda, simplification does not occur. When the most marked
 ON THE ARTICULATORS OF CONSONANTS 183

segments (labials) appear in the coda, simplification takes place. Dorsals found
in the coda delete only if the following onset is the least marked obstruent
(coronal). The liquid [r] is allowed to occur before and after every consonant but
there is a strong tendency to syllabify it as a coda.
So far we have mainly investigated alternations in consonants, such as
devoicing, strengthening and nasalization. These processes give rise to sounds
such as [p, t, k], homorganic nasals and a lateral, which are lacking from the
underlying consonant inventory of Chaha given in Table 1.3. In addition, we
have briefly discussed the role of the place features of consonants on cluster
restrictions. Next we will discuss the functioning of vocoids /U, I/ and their role
in the emergence of new sounds, such as the labiovelars [f w, gw] from labials or
velars /f, g/, the palatals [k’y, y] from velars or coronals /k’, r/ and the alveopala-
tals such as [w, Š] from the coronals /s, z/.
 C 7

Labialization and Palatalization Triggered by /U/

7.1 Introduction

In this chapter I show that /U/ (representing [u] and [w]) triggers both labializat-
ion and palatalization and I discuss the interaction of the two processes. I share
with Kaye and Lowenstamm (1984: 132–3) the position that [u] and [w] are two
different manifestations of a single phoneme /U/, i.e. [u] is a nuclear and [w] a
nonnuclear /U/. I also assume the uncontroversial idea that /U/ is a labiovelar,
which I view as including both Labial and Dorsal articulators. I argue that the
Labial and Dorsal articulators of /U/ dominate the features [round] and [high]
respectively. In addition, I propose that these features dissociate from their
articulators, resulting in autonomously floating [round] and [high] features. This
triggers labialization or/and palatalization as a third manifestation of /U/ (the first
two being [u] and [w]). This analysis will explain the otherwise unsolved
question in the grammar of Chaha that, given the appropriate context, labiali-
zation entails palatalization.
This chapter is organized as follows. In §7.2 I present labialization and
palatalization triggered by some derivational suffixes and I propose that both
processes are triggered by /U/. Derivational infixes involving /U/ are discussed
in §7.3 and inflectional suffixes involving /U/ in §7.4. In §7.5 I argue that word-
initial /U/ does not float and triggers neither labialization nor palatalization. In
§7.6 I discuss labialization and palatalization triggered by a radical /U/ and argue
that it offers independent support for my proposal. In §7.7 I introduce U-trigger-
ed palatalization in Tigrinya and show that it supports my proposal. In §7.8 I
argue that there is no floating vs. nonfloating /U/ difference in Chaha. §7.9
concludes the discussion. Finally, some previous factual errors concerning
labialization in some forms are discussed in an appendix to this chapter.
186 SOUND MUTATIONS

7.2 Derivational suffixes involving /U/

Chaha has some derivational suffixes involving /U/ which form verbal partici-
ples, nouns and adjectival/nominal participles from roots. For instance, from the
root –t’ös ‘roast’ we derive the verbal participle t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’ and the
adjectival/nominal participle t’GöwGs → t’us ‘roasted (meat)’, where meat is
implicit. Similarly, from –sröt ‘sojourn’ we derive the noun sGrpw6c6 ‘good-bye’,
etc. I assume that roots are not specified for category. So, the different catego-
ries (verb, noun and adjective) are determined by affixes, which is why I call the
affixes derivational. However, my analysis makes no formal distinction between
derivational and inflectional affixes. See Di Sciullo and Williams (1987: 69–71)
for arguments that there is no reason for such a distinction. In this section, I will
propose that labialization and palatalization in these forms are triggered by
suffixes involving /U/.

7.2.1 Labialization and palatalization in verbal participles

Some verbal participles are formed by labializing a rightmost labial or velar

consonant of a root and concomitantly palatalizing a root-final coronal obstruent,
as in –t’ös → t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’. An exhaustive list of roots whose verbal
participles include rightmost labialization and stem-final palatalization is given in
(1).1 The Imperative forms are given to show that labialization and palatalization
in the past participle does not originate from the root. (The glosses given are
those of verbal participles, shown in the second column. Unless specified
otherwise, the discussion throughout this chapter refers to the column immediate-
ly before the gloss and the Imperative ( ), usually shown in the first
column, is given for comparison.)

1. Verbal participles employing a similar pattern but which do not have a corresponding verb, e.g.
6mw6c’ ‘not well cooked’, gw6Š6Š ‘strained the throat’, and gwGc’ ‘swallowed’, are found but will not
be discussed as we have no evidence as to what the source of labialization and palatalization is. (But
it is possible that gw in gwGc’ ‘swallowed’, is an occlusivized /U/ of wat’ ‘has swallowed’.) In
addition, verbal participles with neither labialization nor palatalization, e.g. –k’rt’m → k’Grt’Gm ‘cut
at once’, or with palatalization but no labialization, e.g. –röt’ → nGbGc’ ‘warmed slightly’, are found.
I assume that such verbal participles do not contain the trigger of labialization and palatalization.
These will not be discussed as they have no bearing on the point in discussion.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 187

(1) Rightmost labialization and stem-final palatalization in verbal participles

Imperative Verbal participle
a. t’Gös t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’
a-draft’ dGrf wGc’ ‘overstrained’
a-draxt dGrxwGc ‘hurried a lot’
a-fasGs f w6w6w ‘overflowed’
a-mGrt’ mwGrc’ ‘escaped unnoticed’
b6sbGs bw6wbw6w ‘sit still (to rot)’
k’ 6nt’Gs
w
k’wGnt’Gw ‘pinched’
m6t’Gs mwGt’Gw ‘broken at once by pulling’
mGzGz mwGŠGŠ/mwGŠŠ ‘drown out totally’
s6rk’Gt’ sGrk’wGc’ ‘hidden (as in an abyss)’
t’6mGt c’GmwGc ‘struck (to death)’ (< –t’Imt)
b. bGk6t bGk Gc/b GkGc ‘exhausted (to death)’
w w

gGms gGmwGw ‘broken in big chunks’

k’Gö6t’ k’GbwGc’ ‘disappeared completely’
a-k’ymamt’ k’GmwGc’ ‘well decorated’
c. b6rk’Gt’ bw6rk’6c’ ‘split open (as when giving birth)’
d. 6rk’ GnnGk’w ‘grabbed, hanged’
n6grGg nGgwnGgw ‘coveted’
t’Gr6k’ t’GnnGk’w ‘dried a lot’
t6-t’6n6k’ c’GnnGk’w ‘worried a lot’ (< –t’Irk’)
e. k’Grf k’GnnGf w ‘struck down (to death)’
k’6mba k’6mbwa ‘broken at once’
Each verbal participle in (1a) has only one labializable root consonant, which is
labialized. In (1b), each word has two labializable root consonants of which the
last is labialized (though bwGkGc is also possible in (1b)). There are two labiali-
zable consonants in bw6rk’6c’, (1c), of which only the first one (b) is labialized.
That b in (1c) is labialized even though it is not the last labializable consonant
shows that the one word in (1c) behaves differently than those in (1b). The final
coronal obstruent is palatalized in (1a–c), i.e. labialization of a nonfinal conso-
nant entails palatalization of the final coronal obstruent.
The participles of (1d, e) display only labialization. Here, the final velar in
(1d) and labial in (1e) are labialized. The final velars are not palatalized even
though velars are palatalized in the 2 , e.g. /t-d6rg-I/ → [tGd6rgy] ‘you (
) hit ’. (See §9.5.2 and Rose 1997 and the references therein for a
discussion of the 2  palatalization.) In addition, nonfinal velar and coronal
are not palatalized.
188 SOUND MUTATIONS

Even though the majority of the verbal participles in (1) have the epenthetic
vowel sequence G-G, as in t’GbwGw, we also find some forms such as f w6w6w, from
(1a), and bw6rk’6c’, (1c), with a 6-6 sequence. This will have consequences later
but for now I only note that both G-G and 6-6 are possible. It is also worth noting
that the medial consonant in most of the triradicals is a simplified geminate and
that simplification does not apply to [nn] in (1d, f). This difference with respect
to degemination does not exist in other geminate contexts, such as the Perfective,
discussed in Chapter 4. It should also be noted that the CGCGC participles such as
gGmwGw and t’GbwGw, from (1b), go against the rules of Chaha epenthesis (according
to our discussion in §1.5.3 we expect *gGmww and t’Gbw(G)w) suggesting that, at this
level of analysis, the medial consonants are geminates even phonetically.
In contrast to English participles, which can be both adjectival as in fried
chicken and verbal as in has fried, the participles of Chaha discussed above are
only verbal since they cannot modify a noun, e.g. *t’GbwGw b6s6r (well-roasted
meat) vs. t’us b6s6r ‘roasted meat’. They express an intensified/fast action of the
root. They are semantically equivalent to Amharic t’GbbGss as in t’GbbGss al6 ‘it
has been well roasted’ and t’GbbGss a-d6rr6g6 ‘he has roasted  well’. See
Beyene (1980) for an analysis of similar forms in Amharic as intensive.
The verbal participles require an auxiliary, as is the case in many languages.
When the participle is followed by the auxiliary bar6-m ‘has become’ (lit. ‘has
said’) the grammatical subject of the sentence is the object of the participle, as
in b6s6r xwGta t’GbwGw bar6-m (lit. meat the well-roasted has-become) ‘the meat has
been well roasted’. When the participle is followed by the causative auxiliary
a-m6n6-m ‘has made’, the grammatical subject of the sentence is the subject of
the auxiliary, as in b6s6r xwGta t’GbwGw a-mw6n6-nG-m (lit. meat the well-roasted he-
has-made-it) ‘he has roasted the meat well’. The auxiliaries bar6-m and a-m6n6-
m conjugate for aspect, tense and agreement whereas the participles are invari-
able, e.g. t’GbwGw bar6-m ‘it has become well roasted’, t’GbwGw y6-ö6r ‘let it become
well roasted’ t’GbwGw yG-öGr-te ‘it will become well roasted’.
Having these introductory notes, we can now proceed to the main problem
of the chapter: establishing the claim that labialization entails palatalization, and
explaining it.

7.2.2 Decomposition of /U/ and /I/

I propose that the verbal participles of (1) have a CV(C)CVC-U pattern.

Furthermore, the suffix /-U/, as well as any other /U/, consists of the articulators
Labial dominating [round] and Dorsal dominating [high]. (See Sagey 1990 for
organizing height and tongue position features of vowels under the articulator
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 189

Dorsal.) This is in  but, in Chaha, the features [round] and [high] dissociate
from their articulators and they become autonomous (or floating), as shown in
(2).2 See Johnson (1975: 34) for a view that such floating features start as an
underlying vowel and Zoll (1996: 8) for the opposite view (i.e. [round] lacks a
Root node even in ). In other words, the dual (Labial and Dorsal) nature of
/U/ is responsible for labialization and palatalization.
(2) Decomposition of /U/
X X

Root Root

Place Place

Labial Dorsal Labial Dorsal

[round] [high] [round] [high]

Decomposition of /U/, (2), allows [round] and [high] to realize independently, i.e.
it makes them autonomous. [round] labializes the rightmost labializable conso-
nant (labial or velar), as in (1). (In the absence of a labial or velar consonant
some /U/ appear on a vowel while others do not surface, depending on the
source and position of /U/ in the word, see §7.6.) [high] palatalizes a final
coronal obstruent, as in (1a–c). I claim that all /U/’s with the exception of root
and word-initial /U/ float in this manner (see §7.5 for initial /U/) and they end up
with the representation shown on the right side of the arrow (→) in (2).
My thesis is that the features [round] and [high] constitute a single phoneme
/U/ in . But one may instead propose that [round] and [high] are two indepen-
dent features representing either a discontinuous morpheme or two different
morphemes. Such a proposal (where labialization and palatalization belong to
two different morphemes) has been advanced for the impersonal (see, for
example, Leslau 1967: 1153, McCarthy 1983: 181, Lieber 1988: 200 and Rose
1994b: 117). But we will see as we proceed that given the appropriate context,
i.e. in a configuration where a labial or velar consonant is followed by a coronal
obstruent, labialization entails palatalization. This shows that the two processes

2. As Chaha has no front round vowel, [round] implies [back]. Hence, [back] in /U/ is redundant,
which is why it is suppressed in (2). An intermediate node Peripheral (dominated by Place and
dominating both Labial and Dorsal) is suppressed for simplicity.
190 SOUND MUTATIONS

are dependent on each other, i.e. they are concomitant. This indicates that
[round] and [high] are not underlyingly independent features. Decomposition of
/U/ is thus required. As I will argue in Chapter 9, the allomorphy in object suffixes
known as Heavy-Light alternation justifies the presence of the bare articulator
node Dorsal shown on the right side of (2). It also follows that the features
neither represent a discontinuous morpheme nor belong to different morphemes.
The phoneme /U/ undergoes fission resulting in autonomously floating
[round] and [high]. The features float leftward and dock on the appropriate host,
which is the nearest preceding labial or velar for [round] and a left-adjacent
coronal obstruent for [high] (i.e. no phonetic consonant intervenes between the
palatalization target and trigger). Accordingly, the verbal participle t’GbwGw can be
represented as follows:
(3) Verbal participle labialization and palatalization
t’ G öö G s + Root

Place

Dorsal
Labial =
= [high]
[round]
t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’
Hence, the targets of [round] and [high], i.e. of labialization and palatalization
respectively, are distinct.3 As shown in (3), the features of /U/ are realized on
distinct segments, i.e. while producing a word like [t’GbwGw], lip rounding (for
[bw]) is accompanied by retracting and raising of the tongue body (for [w]). On
the interaction of lip rounding and tongue-body raising see, among others,
Stevens, Keyser and Kawasaki (1986), Perkell, Matthies, Svirsky and Jordan
(1993), and De Jong (1995). In feature-geometric terms, [round] targets the
nearest preceding Peripheral node whereas [high] targets the left-adjacent
Coronal node. See Akinlabi (1996: 246) for a different view.
In my analysis, not all features of /U/ are found in a labialized or palatalized
consonant. For instance, [bw] in (3) does not include [high] and [w] does not
include [round]. Similarly, rounding of a vowel such as /6/ yields a nonhigh

3. The movement of [high] to the left is limited to the left-adjacent consonant. This suggests that
[high] is not as free as [round] to move away from its base position.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 191

round vowel [o], and not a high round vowel [u], supporting the claim that
labialization attributes the feature [round] and not [high]. Vocalization of a
labialized [öw] yields [u], e.g. sGöwGr → sur ‘broken’, which seems to suggest that
[öw] includes not only the feature [round] but also [high] of [u]. In my view,
[high] originates from [G] (which are adjacent to [öw]) and the feature that [u]
obtains from [öw] is only [round]. Nevertheless, because all round vowels are
[+back] in Chaha, rounding implies backing (/6, G/ → [o, u]). This can be
expressed by a redundancy rule, [round] → [+back].
Palatalization in Chaha is normally triggered by /I/, which represents the
high front vowel [i] and the palatal glide [y] observed in other Semitic languages
of Ethiopia. Alveolars, velars and vowels are palatalized in the 2  irrespec-
tive of differences in the aspect of the verb. This is an established fact (see Rose
1994a and the references therein) and I will not deal with it here. (See below on
dissociation of the palatalizing terminal feature [−back] from Dorsal.) But one
crucial difference between alveolars and other palatalization targets needs to be
emphasized. Consider the following examples:
(4) 2  palatalization
a. /UAt’-I/ → [wac’] ‘Swallow!’
b. /a-t’fA-I/ → [a-t’if6] ‘Ruin!’
c. /UGt’A-I/ → [wGc’6] ‘Go out!’
d. /dAk’-I/ → [dak’y] ‘Laugh!’
e. /k’Am-I/ → [k’yam] ‘Eat  small (e.g. c’at, sugar)!’
f. /t’Af-I/ → [t’7f] ‘Patch!’
g. /fAf-I/ → [f7f] ‘Scrape!’
h. /d6kGm-I/ → [d6kyGm] ‘Bash!’
i. /kGtGf-I/ → [kGtif] ‘Hash!’
The alveolar /t’/ in (4a) is left adjacent to /I/ and it is palatalized. But /t’/ in (4b)
is not left adjacent to /I/ in  and it is not palatalized. The /A/ in (4c) does not
preclude palatalization of /t’/ showing that an intervening /A/ is ignored.4 The
velar /k’/ in (4d, e) is palatalized irrespective of whether or not it is left adjacent
to /I/. /A/ (or any vowel) is palatalized when it is neither left adjacent to /I/ nor
right adjacent to a velar, (4f, g) vs. (4e). In other words, any vowel (including an
empty V, e.g. (4b)) is palatalized/fronted when it is followed by a labial and,
either no dorsal precedes as in (4b, f, g, h) or a coronal intervenes between the

4. The observations about (4a–c) also hold for /r/, e.g. /gGfGr-I/ → [gGfi] ‘release!’, /sGr6f-I/ → [sGref]
‘be sacred!’ and /öGrA-I/ → [bGy6] ‘eat!’
192 SOUND MUTATIONS

vowel and preceding dorsal as in (4i). (However, see Rose 1994a, for variations
concerning an intervening /r/.) Based on these, we can formulate (5a, b, c) about
palatalization in general. See Rose (1992, 1997) for similar generalizations about
the 2  palatalization.
(5) a. Coronal Palatalization
Coronals are palatalized only if they are left adjacent to a trigger.
b. Dorsal Palatalization
Dorsals are palatalized if no coronal intervenes between them
and a following trigger. But a nonfinal /r/ may allow palatali-
zation of a preceding dorsal.
c. Vowel Palatalization
A vowel is palatalized when it is followed by a labial and,
either no dorsal precedes it or a coronal intervenes between the
vowel and preceding dorsal.
In my opinion, Labialization (which affects dorsals and labials) and Dorsal
Palatalization (which affects dorsals) are not subject to locality conditions
because these involve manipulation of a single terminal feature, namely [round]
for Labialization and [−back] for Dorsal Palatalization. However, Coronal
Palatalization (which affects coronals) requires that the target and trigger be
adjacent because Coronal Palatalization involves fusion of the Root nodes of the
target and trigger. This view is supported by the fact that Labialization and
Dorsal Palatalization do not introduce a change in other features such as
continuancy (e.g. a palatalized velar stop remains stop) whereas Coronal
Palatalization does (e.g. it changes stops to affricates and /r/ to [y]).
I assume that the palatalizing -I has a salient feature [−back], located under
the articulator node Dorsal. Parallel to the dissociation of the features [round]
and [high] of /U/ from Dorsal (above), [−back] dissociates from its Dorsal, as
shown in (6).
(6) Decomposition of /I/
X → X
| |
Root Root
| |
Place Place
| |
Dorsal Dorsal
|
[−back] [−back]
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 193

The abandoned Dorsal of /I/ remains unpronounced whereas [−back] docks on a

preceding target and triggers palatalization, following (5a, b, c). I have claimed
that /U/ also triggers palatalization of coronal obstruents. So, there are at least
two different triggers of palatalization: /U/ and /I/. I will also show in this
chapter that all restrictions on U-triggered palatalization follow from Coronal
Palatalization given in (5a) and the claim that U-triggered palatalization targets
only coronal obstruents. /U/ also palatalizes /r/ but only in one context, to be dis-
cussed in §7.6.6.

7.2.3 Labialization and palatalization in nouns

I have stated that /U/ always triggers labialization of the nearest preceding labial or
velar and concomitant palatalization of a left-adjacent coronal obstruent. To
verify this, an exhaustive list of masculine singular Imperatives involving neither
labialization nor palatalization but whose corresponding derived nouns include la-
bialization and a suffix -6 is given below. (The glosses given are those of
nouns.)
(7) Rightmost labialization and stem-final coronal obstruent palatalization
Imperative Noun
a. a-d6md aj-j6mw6j-6 ‘ to be delivered’
gGdGd gw6j-6 ‘well’ (g6du in Harari)
nGk’(G)t’ n6k’w6c’-6 ‘pole to which cows are attached’
s6mbGt sGrpw6c-6 ‘good-bye’
s6p(G)t wGpwac-6 ‘choice’
t’Göt’ t’wac’-6 ‘handful’
b. k’at’Gr k’wat’6r-6 ‘knot’
sGk’Gr s6k’w6r-6 ‘someone grown only physically’
k’GöGr k’6pw6r-6 ‘stage of 6s6t-plant (after planta-
tion)’
c. kGt(G)f kGtf w-6 ‘dish of hashed meat/cabbage’
g6tGm gyGt6mw-6 ‘sale on credit’ < –gIdm
fGk’a f6k’w6 ‘split (wood)’
d. bGda 6j6-w6c6 ‘thanksgiving’
fGt’a f 6c’6
w
‘stage of 6s6t (where leaves are
cut off)’
As can be observed from the list, labialization is accompanied by palatalization
of a stem-final coronal obstruent in (7a). Neither the final r nor the medial coro-
nal obstruents of (7b) are palatalized. In (7c), a final labial or velar consonant is
194 SOUND MUTATIONS

labialized and medial coronal obstruents are not palatalized. But a medial coronal
obstruent is palatalized if only a vocoid intervenes between a coronal and the
right edge of the word, (7d). All the facts indicate that labialization and palatali-
zation in these nouns function like the verbal participles discussed in §7.2.1.
(There is also the noun 6gwŠ-a ‘ally’ which derives from –Agz. Labialization and
palatalization in this word function like (7a) but the suffix here is -a instead of -6.)
My solution for the nouns in (7) is that they have a suffix /-U6/, e.g.
/r6k’6t’-U6/ → [n6k’w6c’-6]. In all these cases, Decomposition of /U/, (2), causes
[round] and [high] to dissociate from their articulators and become autonomous,
independently floating leftward. The feature [round] labializes the nearest
preceding labial or velar, and the feature [high] palatalizes the left-adjacent
coronal obstruent (adjacency is computed at the underlying level). A radical /A/
intervening between a coronal obstruent and /U/, as in /f6t’A-U/ → [f w6c’6],
from (7d), does not block palatalization. (I assume without argument that /A/
lacks the necessary node to disrupt adjacency.) A stem-final r is not palatalized
because r is not targeted by U-triggered palatalization except under certain
conditions to be defined in §7.6.6. The t’ as in /k’At’6r-U6/ → [k’wat’6r6] is not
palatalized because of Coronal Palatalization, given in (5a), which requires a
coronal target to be left adjacent to the trigger (here /U/) of palatalization.
There is a historical source for the proposed suffix /-U6/, whose manifesta-
tion is -o in Amharic, e.g. kGtf-o ‘dish of hashed meat’ (from –ktf ‘hash’), k’at’6l-
o ‘blaze, burning’ (from –k’At’l ‘burn’), mag6d-o ‘firewood’ (from –mAgd ‘stoke
 up, fuel’), mGrk-o ‘captive, booty’, (from –mArk ‘capture’), etc. As noted for
similar Amharic nouns in Leslau (1995: 243), most of the Chaha nouns in (7)
express the resulting substance of an action denoted by the root. Dillmann
(1907: 257) states: “accented termination ō … is chiefly of service in the
derivation of Names of the products of artistic skill [his italic]”, showing that
similar generalizations hold also in Geäez. This suggests that the nouns are
derived by adding a suffix which includes /U/, such as /-U6/. The /U/ fuses with
/6/ in Amharic and Geäez to yield [o] whereas in Chaha the features of /U/ float
and trigger labialization and palatalization.
Labialization in the nouns of (8) function in a similar fashion even though they
do not have a suffix -6. Nevertheless, these nouns do not display palatalization.
(8) Imperative Noun
a. gGdGd gwGdGd ‘torn, hole’
m6t’Gs mwGt’Gs ‘someone who is scanty’
b. g6rdGf gGrdGf w-6r ‘ which is not ground fine’
g6rdGm gGrdGmw ‘stage of 6s6t-plant (upper part is
cut off)’
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 195

fGt’Gr f wGt’Gr ‘creation’

k’GöGr k’GwGr ‘plantation’
m6zGr mwGzGr ‘count’
nGk’Gr m6-]k’w6r ‘stage of 6s6t-plant (ready for
harvest)’
I assume that these nouns have a suffix /-U/. However, given this assumption,
the final coronal obstruents of (8a) are wrongly predicted to palatalize. I believe
that these two nouns are a random list of exceptions to U-triggered palatalization.
But the final consonants in (8b) are expected not to palatalize as they are not
coronal obstruents.

7.2.4 Labialization and palatalization in adjectival/nominal participles

The proposal that /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalization also receives
support from adjectival/nominal participles with the suffix -at, shown below.5
Here, too, the rightmost labial or velar is labialized and the root-final coronal
obstruent is palatalized, as in (9a). But r is not palatalized, (9b). In (9c), the
stem-final labials and velars are labialized. The stem-internal t’ in (9b, c) is not
palatalized. These phenomena parallel those we saw in verbal participles and
nouns. (The glosses given are those of adjectival/nominal participles.)
(9) Rightmost labialization and stem-final palatalization in participles
with -at
Imperative Adjectival/nominal participle
a. a-örak’(G)t’ a-örak’w6c’-at ‘spoiled (person)’
at-mat’Gt’ an-a-mw6c’6c’-at ‘without pity’
nGk’(G)t’ at-rak’w6c’-at ‘very near (as to be stepped on)’
nGm6d nam 6j-at
w
‘beloved (person)’
b. dGöGr dapw6r-at ‘appended (, person)’
a-ft’Gr a-f w6t’6r-at ‘quickly made (food)’
bGx6r am-b6kw6r-at ‘without shortage’
sGöGr at-sapw6r-at ‘unhealthy’

5. I call the participles adjectival/nominal because they can be both adjectives and nouns, as is the
English word working in the working classes and the workings of conscience. When the participle can
be nominal I give its implicit noun in parentheses. These are what Dillmann (1907: 213) calls: “words
which are not Self-dependent (Adjectives), but which state a conception as being realizable in a
person or thing, and therefore always involve a reference to a person or thing, to which they are
ready to be attributed, i.e. Descriptive or Qualifying Words [his italics].”
196 SOUND MUTATIONS

c. a-k’wrat’Gö a-k’wrat’6w-at ‘accumulated ()’

nGt’(G)k’ at-rat’6k’w-at ‘snatched (e.g. while making
mats)’
The root-final vocoids /A/ in (10a), /I/ in (10b) and /U/ in (10c) delete before the
suffix -at (or fuse with it). The radical preceding the deleted vocoid is palatali-
zed if it is a coronal obstruent and labialized if it is a labial or velar.
(10) Root-final vocoid before -at
a. k’Gt’a a-]-k’w6c’-at ‘rude (person)’
nGga a-r6kw-at ‘coagulated (milk, butter, etc.)’
wGt’a at-wac’-at ‘contributed (money, butter, etc.)’
b. 6r6gy 6r6gw-at ‘thrown ()’
c. t’u < tGöw a-t’6pw-at ‘suckled (mother)’
My solution to the participles in (9) and (10) is that their surface suffix [−at]
derives from /-Uat/. The [round] and [high] features of /U/ from /-Uat/ dissociate
and become autonomous following (2). They independently float leftward to
labialize the nearest preceding labial or velar and palatalize the left-adjacent
coronal obstruent, as in /a-örak’6t’-Uat/ → [a-örak’w6c’-at]. When the stem-final
radical is labial or velar (as in examples (b, c)) there is no left-adjacent coronal
obstruent to be palatalized, which explains the absence of palatalization.

7.2.5 Adjectival/nominal participles involving reduplication and a suffixal /U/

In this section, I present adjectival/nominal participles involving either total or

medial reduplication. The stem-internal vocalism of these participles may include
underlying vowels such as 6 or a, indicating that it is not occupied by /U/. These
participles undergo both labialization and palatalization, as in (11). Here, too,
labialization targets the root-initial labial or velar and palatalization targets the
root-final coronal obstruent. As usual, palatalization does not occur if the stem-
final consonant is not a coronal obstruent.
(11) Labialization in participles involving reduplication and a suffix -at
Root Imperative Adjectival/nominal participle
a. –öt’ b6t’bGt’ bwGc’abw6c’-at ‘stirred (cheese and whey)’
–k’r k’Grak’Gr k’wGrak’w6r-at ‘mixed (, someone)’
b. –fr a-frafGr a-f(w)raf w6r-at ‘dirtied (cloth, food)’6
–gö a-göagGö a-gö/wak6w-at ‘crowded (plantation)’

6. fr may metathesize to rf to yield a-rf(w)an6f w-at ‘dirtied’. See §6.4 on metathesis.

 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 197

–t’m a-t’mat’Gm a-t’m(w)at’6mw-at ‘curved (road, horn, etc.)’

–zg a-z6zGg a-z6zgw-at ‘ thrown in a spiral
motion’
c. –röt’ a-röaöt’ a-rb(w)abw6c’-at ‘soft and slim (wGsa-bread)’
–rk’t’ a-rk’ak’(G)t’ a-rk’(w)ak’w6c’-at ‘winnowed (grain)’
–zmd zGmamd zGm(w)amw6j-at ‘mixed (cabbage and cheese)’
d. –ft’r a-ft’at’Gr a-f wt’at’6r-at ‘very quickly made (food)’
–k’Irö a-k’yrarGö a-k’yran6w-at ‘near’
–rk’m a-rk’ak’Gm a-rk’ak’6mw-at ‘picked’
–t’rm a-t’rarGm a-t’ran6mw-at ‘darken (face, clay)’
–rgf a-rgagGf a-rgag6f w-at ‘fallen (flour from sieve)’
–t’rk’ a-t’rark’ a-t’ran6k’w-at ‘dried (coffee grain)’
–t’Irk’ a-c’rark’ a-c’ran6k’w-at ‘dripped (milk)’
The participles in (11) have the same /-Uat/ of (9) and (10), i.e. their pattern is
CCaCC6C-Uat (excluding the prefix a-). The only difference here is that they
display reduplication; a biradical reduplicates totally when it is supplied with
CCaCC6C-Uat, cf. (11a, b), and a triradical undergoes medial reduplication when
supplied with the same pattern, cf. (11c, d). (The quadriradicals –k’Irö and –t’Irk’
of (11d) behave like triradicals.) See also Prunet and Petros (1996) for different
types of reduplication to satisfy a unique local-movement pattern.
One problem concerning the forms in (11b, c) is whether both tokens of the
reduplicated consonant should be labialized or not. There is no consistency
among different speakers. For instance, Leslau (1979: vol. I) records a-rbabw6c’-
at in which only the second b is labialized and zGmwamw6j-at in which both m’s
are labialized. I personally labialize both consonants in each word but I also
accept forms in which only the last labial or velar is labialized, so I parenthe-
sized the first w to indicate that it is optional. Note, however, that both tokens
must be labialized in (11a) (and (12) below). In addition, both tokens must be
palatalized in bwGc’abw6c’-at (not *bwGt’abw6c’-at) ‘stirred (cheese and whey)’,
from (11a), and in all the participles of (12).
(12) Labialization and palatalization in participles with -6(r)
Root Imperfective Participle
–ft f6tfGt f wGcf wGc-6(r) ‘() crumbled’
–ft’ f6t’fGt’ f w6c’f w6c’-6 ‘worst quality (wGsa to be
discarded)’
–k’t’ k’6t’k’Gt’ k’wGc’k’wGc’-6(r) ‘beaten (chain ornament)’
–k’t’ k’6t’k’Gt’ k’wGc’k’wac’-6 ‘beaten (chain on which
to keep keys)’
–kt k6tkGt kwGckwGc-6(r) ‘mashed (type of dish
from 6s6t-root)’
198 SOUND MUTATIONS

My assumption is that all the participles in (12) use a CVCCVC-U6(r) pattern

and that the biradicals reduplicate totally to satisfy this pattern. In addition, the
features of /U/ float to labialize the nearest preceding labial or velar and
palatalize the left-adjacent coronal obstruent of the root. So, labialization and
palatalization affect both copies of the reduplicated consonant, i.e. /ft-U6(r)/ →
[f wGcf wGc6(r)].7 This generalization holds also for the participles of (11) except
that labializing the first token of a reduplicated consonant is optional if this
consonant is in a noninitial position, as in (11b, c).
What characterizes (11) and (12) is that labialization and palatalization are
accompanied by a suffix. In my view, these two processes are triggered by
U-initial suffixes. Because /U/ is a suffix, it targets the final radical, labializes
it if it is labial or velar, and palatalizes it if it is a coronal obstruent. A possible
origin of the proposed ending /-Uat/ of the participles, (9)–(11), is the ending of
the   participle k’Gt(t)ul-at of other Ethiopian Semitic languages such as
Amharic k’Gddus-at and Geäez k’GddGs-at ‘saints ()’ but without gender
distinction. See Dillmann (1907: 258) for an opinion that the -at of such words
(his -aØ t) sometimes originate from -ōt. Similarly, I assume that the /-U6(r)/ of
(12) is the masculine plural marker ending -an of other Ethiopian Semitic
languages found as in Amharic k’Gddus-an ‘saints ()’ but again without
gender distinction. See Dillmann (1907: 259–60) for an opinion that the -an of
such words (his -aØ n) sometimes surfaces as -ōn, e.g. Amharic z6yt-ōn ‘oliveyard’
or even -ām as in Amharic t’Grs-am ‘one who has large teeth’.

7.2.6 Infinitives in Inor

As detailed in Hetzron and Marcos (1966), the infinitive in Inor (called Ennemor
in Amharic) is formed by labialization and palatalization, accompanied by a
prefix 6- and a suffix -t, as exemplified below.8 (The same generalization holds
for Endegeň, see Leslau 1992: 472.)

7. Rarely, nouns with palatalization alone are found, e.g. m6t’mGt’ ‘rot!’ vs. mGc’mac’-6 ‘ rotten’.
Two possible explanations are available for such nouns: (a) palatalization in them is triggered by /I/,
or (b) [round] of /U/ is lost.
8. The infinitival suffix in Chaha is /-ot/. See Hetzron and Marcos (1966: 26, note 20) and the
references there for a proposal that the infinitival suffix in Inor also derives from a historical *-ot.
The stem-final voiced obstruents devoice in the Infinitive due to voicing assimilation with the
following t.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 199

(13) Infinitives in Inor (data from Hetzron and Marcos 1966: 25–28)
Imperative Infinitive
a. dGrg 6-dGrgw-t ‘to beat’
b. dGmd 6-dGmwc-t ‘to join’
c. gGr6z 6-gwr6w-t ‘to age’
d. z6pGr 6-z6p Gr-t
w
‘to return’
e. nGz6z 6-nŠ6w-t ‘to dream’
f. z6nGr 6-z6nGr-t ‘to veil’
In (13a), there is only labialization of the final velar. In (13b, c), the last labial
or velar is labialized and the final coronal obstruents are palatalized. The coronal
sonorant r is not palatalized, (13d). There is no labializable consonant in (13e)
so we only have stem-final palatalization. There is no labializable or palatalizable
consonant in (13f) so neither labialization nor palatalization occurs. These data
parallel the rightmost labialization and stem-final palatalization in Chaha.
Assuming that the infinitival affix in Inor is /-Ut/ this is one more argument that
/U/ triggers labialization of the nearest preceding labial or velar and palatalization
of a left-adjacent coronal obstruent.
It is proposed that all the forms discussed so far have a U-initial suffix and
that the /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalization. Leaving other possible
questions aside, one may wonder why /U/ is treated as a suffix, and not as an infix,
for instance, as found in the Geäez form k’Gtul. Here I briefly comment on this issue.
Note that some verbal participles, e.g. f w6w6w and bw6rk’6c’, from (1), have
the vowel sequence 6-6. In addition, the stem-internal vowels of the nouns in (7)
vary, e.g. 6-6-6 in n6k’w6c’6, G-a-6 in wGpwac6 and G-6-6 in sGrpw6c6 and so on.
Similarly, the stem-internal vowels of the adjectival/nominal participles in (9) are
a-6 as in at-rak’w6c’-at, 6-6 as in a-f w6t’6r-at. Had the proposed /U/ been stem-
internal, these stems could have at least one epenthetic vowel [G] because the
“departure” of /U/ should result in [w(…)G], not [w(…)6] or [w(…)a] (see
Lowenstamm 1991a: 960 for a compatible proposal). This proves that /U/ in these
forms is not stem-internal and that these forms do not have an underlying k’Gtul
pattern, which we discuss in the following section.

7.3 Derivational infix /U/

Ethiopian Semitic languages form some of their participles with a CG(C)CuC

pattern, as in the Geäez forms k’Gtul, k’Gttul or k’Grtul, which all include a stem-
internal G-u vocalism. It should be noted that the [u] here is not part of the root,
200 SOUND MUTATIONS

as it is not found in most of the verbal paradigm, e.g. k’6t6l. See Dillmann
(1907: 227–9) for such patterns in Geäez, Leslau (1941: 93–4) in Tigrinya, Raz
(1983: 28, 33) in Tigre, Leslau (1992: 224) in Soddo (only for some examples)
and Leslau (1995: 224) in Amharic. Due to the floating nature of /U, I/ in most
of the Gurage languages participles such as k’Gtul and k’6tali are assumed to have
disappeared from these languages (see Leslau 1992: 254, 275, 564).9 My claim
will be that Chaha, like other Ethiopian Semitic languages, has adjectival/nominal
participles, nouns and verbal participles which display the CV(C)CC pattern.
The analysis so far predicts that the final C of CV(C)CC may not be targeted
by labialization and palatalization. This is because /U/ is claimed to labialize the
nearest preceding labial or velar and to palatalize a left-adjacent coronal obstru-
ent. The analysis also predicts that the stem-final nucleus of the CV(C)CC
pattern (i.e. the original site of /U/) may not be occupied by any other underlying
vowel, since it belongs to /U/. In this subsection, I show that such forms confirm
these predictions and support my claim that /U/ both labializes and palatalizes.
I have shown that when labialization and palatalization are triggered by a
suffixal /U/ they target a stem-final consonant; labialize it if it is labializable,
e.g. /t’GrrGk’-U/ → [t’GnnGk’w] ‘dried a lot’ and palatalize it if it is palatalizable,
e.g. /a-örak’6t’-Uat/ → [a-örak’w6c’-at] ‘spoiled (person)’. If the stem-final
consonant is not an appropriate target for both, labialization targets a preceding
consonant while palatalization does not occur, e.g. /a-f6t’6r-Uat/ → [a-f w6t’6r-at]
(not *[a-f w6c’6r-at]) ‘quickly made’. However, in the following subsections, I
will present forms (adjectives, nouns and passive participles) in which the final
root consonant is unaffected regardless of it being an appropriate target. I will
explain this by proposing that the trigger (/U/) precedes the final consonant, as
observed in the Geäez forms k’Gtul, k’Gttul and k’Grtul.

7.3.1 Nonrightmost labialization and stem-internal palatalization

The adjectives and/or nouns in (14a, b) show that an affix can trigger palatali-
zation of a stem-internal coronal obstruent. In addition, as noted in Rose
(1994b: 117), it is not the last labial or velar which is labialized in (14a).

9. The active participle k’6tali pattern also exists as in faraç ‘patient’ from /faraxI/, c6wac ‘worker’
from /c6watI/ and c’ak’waw ‘beggar’ from /c’ak’wasI/ but it will not be discussed in this book.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 201

(14) Labialization and stem-internal palatalization

Imperative Adjective and/or noun
a. k’6rt’Gm k’wGrc’Gm ‘splinters of wood’ (noun)
fGt’Gm f wGc’Gm ‘closed, untouched’ (adj.)
nGf(G)g nGf w(G)g ‘avaricious’ (noun or adj.)
t6-k’6n6ö k’ GrGö
w
‘near’ (adj.)
b. m6tGr mwGcGr ‘stump’ (adj.)
m6t’Gr mwGc’Gr ‘cleansed’ (adj.)
b6tGr bwGcGr ‘different’ (adj.)
k’6mt’Gr k’Gmwc’Gr ‘amputated’ (adj.)
xGdGr xwGjGr ‘clothes’ (noun)
In (14a, b), the final labials and velars are not labialized and medial coronal
obstruents are palatalized, i.e. labialization and palatalization affect the medial
radical but not the final one. According to my analysis, a suffix-triggered
labialization can target only the rightmost labial or velar. In addition, Coronal
Palatalization, given in (5a), predicts that palatalization of the medial consonant
cannot be triggered by a suffix since the target and the triggering suffix would
not be adjacent. It then follows that the labializing and palatalizing affix of
(14a, b) is not a suffix.
My solution is that the nouns and/or adjectives of (14) have a CG(C)CC
pattern. We are now able to explain why /k’/ in k’wGrc’Gm is labialized instead of
the last labializable consonant /m/, and why the stem-internal /t’/ is palatalized.
In this view, the derivation of [k’wGrc’Gm] would be /k’Grt’Um/ → [k’wGrc’Gm]
whereas that of gGrdGmw ‘stage of 6s6t-plant’, from (7c), would be /gGrdGm-U/ →
[gGrdGmw]. As I have claimed in §7.2.2, the autosegments of /U/ in /k’Grt’Um/
dissociate and float. Accordingly, [round] labializes the nearest preceding labial
or velar and [high] palatalizes the left-adjacent coronal obstruent, as in k’wGrc’Gm.

7.3.2 Labialization and palatalization in adjectives and/or nouns with -a

One more argument showing that the position of /U/, whether it is infixal or
suffixal, plays a role in determining which consonants are affected comes from
adjectives and/or nouns with a suffix -a. The stem-final labials and velars of
(15) are not labialized.
(15) Imperative Adjective and/or noun
g6tGm gwGcm-a ‘without stew (bread)’
a-t’Gök’ tuk’-a < t’Göwk’-a ‘poles to tighten the roof’
202 SOUND MUTATIONS

The last labializable consonants of (15) are not labialized because they are stem-
final and /U/ precedes them. In my view, the first example is derived as: /gGtUm-
a/ → [gwGcma]. The fact that /m/ in [gwGcma] is not labialized follows from the
leftward direction of floating. The fact that /t/ is palatalized follows from the
claim that /U/ triggers palatalization.
Absence of stem-final labialization in (15) seems to be inconsistent with the
data in (16), where the surface stem-final consonants are labialized.
(16) Imperative Adjective and/or noun
nGma nGmw-a ‘highly grown (grass)’
nGöa nGw-a < nGöw-a ‘split’
t’Gf we10 t’Gf w-a ‘satiation’
My proposal is that the labials of (16) are not the underlying stem-final conso-
nants. Comparison of the two columns in (16) shows that the final radical is a
vocoid. So, the first example is derived as: /nGmUA-a/ → [nGmwa]. Again, the
fact that /m/ in [nGmwa] is labialized follows from the leftward direction of floating.
The same apparent contradiction is observed between (17) and (18). As can
be deduced from the Imperative, t is stem-final in (17) and stem-medial in (18),
the final radical being /A/ in (18). As a stem-final consonant, t is not palatalized
in the adjective of (17) while it is in (18).
(17) Imperative Adjective
kGft kGf wt-a ‘light-colored’
(18) fGta f wGc-a ‘solved (e.g. contradiction)’
(17) and (18) are derived as: /kGfUt-a/ → [kGf wta] and /fGtUA-a/ → [f wGca].
Again, the fact that /t/ in [kGf wta] is not palatalized follows from the leftward
direction of floating. On the other hand, the difference, i.e. unpalatalized stem-
final vs. palatalized stem-medial consonant, is not observable in (19) vs. (20).
(19) Imperative Adjective (noun)
gGfGr gGf wr-a ‘abandoned (house)’
6gGr Ggwr-a ‘owned (cattle)’
k’Gö6r k’ur-a < k’Göwr-a ‘not full, incomplete’
(20) bGra bwGr-a ‘glutton(ous), 6s6t-eating insect’
mGra mwGr-a ‘full, complete’

10. The stem-final /U/ of /t’Gf6U/ exceptionally palatalizes /6/ to [e] only in the Imperative.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 203

(19) and (20) are derived as follows: /gGfUr-a/ → [gGf wra] and /öGrUA-a/ →
[bwGra]. But, whether r is stem-final, as in (19), or stem-internal, as in (20),
makes no difference because r is mostly not targeted by U-triggered labialization
or palatalization. In this view, the forms in (15) to (20) employ a CVCC-a
pattern, as in fat’ur-a, (21). However, fat’ur-a is an exception in not having the
expected initial labialization and stem-internal palatalization, as in /fat’Ur-a/ →
*[f wac’r-a], and preserving the /U/ as [u] in situ.
(21) Imperative Adjective
fat’Gr fat’ur-a ‘tall’
In (15) to (21), /U/ is located between the penultimate and the final radical. So,
the analysis predicts that the final radical should not be targeted by /U/. It also
predicts that the penultimate radical should be palatalized if it is a coronal
obstruent and labialized if it is a labial or velar. If the penultimate consonant is
not labialized, a preceding labial or velar should be labialized. All these predic-
tions are borne out except for the form in (21). The other prediction is that, in
forms with the CV(C)CC pattern, the last syllable nucleus may not be occupied
phonetically by any vowel but [G]. This prediction is also confirmed as can be
verified in the adjectives and nouns discussed in §7.3.2.

7.3.3 Labialization without palatalization in adjectival/nominal participles

The stem-final coronals in the adjectival/nominal participles of (22) are not

palatalized despite the fact that a preceding consonant is labialized. In other
words, labialization in these participles does not entail palatalization.
(22) Labialization without palatalization
Imperative Adjectival/nominal participle
a. a-draxt dGrxwGt ‘hurry’ (noun)
bGs6r bwGsGr ‘ripe (fruit, coffee, etc.)’
bGt’Gr bwGt’Gr ‘eighth (of wGsa bread)’
fGk’6r fGk’wGr ‘fat’ (noun and adj.)
g6kGr gwGkwGr ‘straight, well-behaved’
gGmGm gGmwGmw ‘chipped, cut off (utensil)’
k’Gms k’GmwGs ‘tasty (food)’
nGg6s nGgwGs ‘king’ (noun)
sGöGr sur < sGöwGr ‘broken’
sGk’Gr sGk’wGr ‘high, high up, top’
t6-f6]k’6k’ fG]k’wGk’w ‘careless (person)’
204 SOUND MUTATIONS

t6kGr tGkwGr ‘cooked (food)’

t’Gös t’us < t’Göws ‘roasted (food)’
b. fGr6t’ f wGrt’ ‘blind (person)’
gGr6z gwGrz ‘old (person)’
mGrt’ mwGrt’ ‘shaved, barren’ (adj.)
My analysis is that these participles also have the CG(C)CC pattern, i.e. /dGrxUt/
→ [dGrxwGt] and /fGrUt’/ → [f wGrt’]. So, labialization should target the nearest
labial or velar preceding /U/ and palatalization should target the penultimate
radical (which is left adjacent to /U/). Assuming, as we have so far, that
U-triggered palatalization does not target r, the r in (22) is predicted not to
palatalize whether it is final or medial. Therefore, absence of palatalization is due
to the unavailability of the right target in the appropriate context. Nevertheless,
the stem-medial coronal obstruents of bwGsGr ‘ripe (fruit, coffee, etc.)’ and bwGt’Gr
‘eighth (of wGsa bread)’ in (22a) are wrongly predicted to palatalize. A possible
solution to this problem is to assume that such words are derived from a CCGC
pattern, in which case only the initial consonant is predicted to be affected.

7.3.4 Nonrightmost labialization in verbal participles

We have seen so far that labialization in verbal participles targets the last
labializable consonant, e.g. /k’GnnGf-U/ → [k’GnnGf w] ‘struck down’. However, in
the verbal participles given in (23) it is not the last labial or velar which is labialized.
(23) Nonrightmost labialization
Imperative Verbal participle
a. fGrGm f wGnnGm ‘sliced at once’
at-f6t’Gm f Gt’Gm
w
‘poured at once’
b. a-mGrg mwGnnGg ‘gone away completely’
a-mGrg mwGrg ‘slipped off easily’
m6c’(G)k’ mwGc’Gk’ ‘snatched fast’
My solution for the forms in (23) is that they have a CG(C)CC pattern. Given
this, and accepting the claim that [round] targets the nearest preceding labial or
velar, the final labials of (23a) and velars of (23b) are predicted not to labialize.
Nevertheless, /t’/ in /fGt’t’Um/ → [f wGt’Gm], from (23a), is incorrectly predicted
to palatalize. I assume that it is an exception that does not follow from any other
systematic process in Chaha. In §7.3.1 to §7.3.4 we have seen that adjecti-
val/nominal and verbal participles displaying a CG(C)CC pattern support the
claim that /U/ triggers labialization and palatalization.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 205

7.3.5 Adjectival/nominal participles involving reduplication and an infix /U/

Three facts about the following participles, formed by total reduplication, deserve
a critical observation. First, they have a G-G vowel sequence. Second, the final
coronal obstruents of (24a) are not palatalized. Third, the initial labials of (24b)
are labialized despite the presence of a following velar. The final r of (24c) is
unaffected, as usual.
(24) Adjectival/nominal participles with total reduplication
Root Imperative Adjectival/nominal participle
a. –ös b6sbGs bwGsbwGs11 ‘rotten’
–öt’ b6t’bGt’ bwGt’bwGt’ ‘soiled, stirred’
–k’t’ k’6t’k’Gt’ k’wGt’k’wGt’ ‘castrated’
–gz g6zgGz gwGzgwGz ‘underdeveloped’
b. –ök’ b6k’bGk’ bwGk’bwGk’ ‘too soft (due to aging)’
–mk’ m6k’mGk’ mwGk’mwGk’ ‘very ripe’
–mx m6xmGx mwGxmwGx ‘jiggling’
c. –k’r k’6rk’Gr k’wGrk’wGr ‘prevented (grassland
from being grazed)’
The G-G sequence suggests that the underlying stem-internal vowel is /U/, i.e.
[bwGsbwGs] derives from /öUs/. Note that /U/ is not part of the root as it does not
appear in the Imperative. So the three possible underlying bases of [bwGsbwGs] are
/Uös/ (where /U/ is a prefix), /öUs/ (where /U/ is an infix) and /ösU/ (where /U/
is a suffix). Candidate /Uös/ is excluded because initial /U/ does not float, since
floating in general is leftward (see §7.5). Candidate /ösU/ is also excluded
because if /U/ followed the two radicals it would palatalize the final coronal
obstruent in (24a) and labialize the final velar in (24b). The only remaining
option is /öUs/, where /U/ is predicted to affect /ö/ but not /s/. As predicted, /ö/ is
labialized and /s/ remains unaffected, as shown by the reduplicated form [bwGsbwGs].
If we view labialization and palatalization in §7.3 (where I claim that the
triggering /U/ is an infix, e.g. /k’Grt’UGm/ → [k’wGrc’Gm]) as equivalent to the one
in §7.2 (where the triggering /U/ is claimed to be a suffix, e.g. /t’GööGs-U/ →
[t’GbwGw]), the data in §7.3 will contradict my claim that /U/ labializes the nearest
preceding labial or velar and palatalizes a left-adjacent coronal obstruent. Howev-
er, because the stems discussed in §7.3 involve an infix /U/, and not a suffix /U/,
it follows that their final consonants should be neither labialized nor palatalized,
as the /U/ targets only preceding radicals.

11. The medial [b] becomes a stop to preserve its identity with the initial one.
206 SOUND MUTATIONS

I showed that adjectival/nominal and verbal participles as well as nouns

involving labialization undergo concomitant palatalization. I argued that this is
explained by the proposal that the phoneme /U/ triggers both labialization and
palatalization. I accounted for forms involving labialization without stem-final
palatalization and for nonrightmost labialization. I argued that nonrightmost
labialization and stem-internal palatalization are also triggered by /U/ and I
derived their differences by postulating that the /U/ in the latter forms is an
infix. Apparently, my argumentation here may seem circular since I propose a
suffixal /U/ in one case and an infixal /U/ in another in order for the labiali-
zation and palatalization facts to fall out properly. However, the presence of two
different morphological constructions is evident: semantically we need to
distinguish the noun kGtf w6 ‘dish of hashed meat’ from the participle f wGc’Gm
‘absolute’ and their equivalents in other related languages, e.g. Amharic kGtfo and
fGs’s’um, show that /U/ is external in the former and internal in the latter, which
provides historical support to the two different morphological constructions.
There are no inflectional infixes; all infixes are derivational. Inflectional
affixes are either prefixes or suffixes but no prefixal /U/ floats (see 7.5.1). All
floating inflectional affixes are suffixes. My analysis predicts that a /U/
belonging to an inflectional suffix should trigger only rightmost labialization and
stem-final palatalization. It also predicts that in a succession of suffixes only the
ones that precede the /U/ should be targeted by labialization and palatalization.
I will now show that these predictions are borne out.

7.4 Inflectional suffixes involving /U/

Inflectional suffixes, such as the impersonal subject agreement, trigger labiali-

zation and palatalization. In this section, I present such suffixes and show that
the two processes are concomitant, hence, support the proposal that both are
triggered by the dissociated features of a unique phoneme /U/.

7.4.1 Impersonal labialization and palatalization

Comparing the 2  with the impersonal shows that in the impersonal the
final labial or velar is labialized in (25a). In (25b, c, d, e), the last labial or velar
is labialized and a final coronal obstruent is palatalized. A coronal obstruent
which is followed by a root-final radical /A/ is palatalized, (25d). Nonfinal
labialization, (25b, c, d), entails palatalization of a final coronal obstruent but in
the absence of a labializable consonant palatalization alone occurs, as in (25e).
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 207

In the absence of a labializable or palatalizable consonant, neither labialization

nor palatalization takes place, as in (25f).12
(25) Impersonal labialization and palatalization (in the Imperative)
2  impersonal
a. fGr6x fGr6xw ‘Tolerate!’
sGr6f sGr6f w ‘Be scared!’
b. kGft kGf wc ‘Open!’
c. gGr6z gwGr6Š ‘Age!’
d. fGta f wGc6 ‘Untie!’
e. t’as t’aw ‘Infringe!’
f. nGt’Gr nGt’Gr ‘Separate (from the teats)!’
It is established that *-u: ‘ ’ is the origin of impersonal labialization (see
Rose 1994b: 116–7 for an overview). On the other hand, the impersonal palatali-
zation has been analyzed as a byproduct of the following object suffix -i, as in
Leslau (1967: 1155) and Lieber (1988: 200). However, Leslau (1967: 1153) and
Hetzron (1971: 200) also show that impersonal palatalization occurs even in the
absence of an object suffix, as in the converb k6f w6cG-m ‘having opened’ and
when the object suffix itself does not contain i, e.g. k6f w6c-r-a-m ‘one has
opened it for her’. So, the impersonal suffix includes [round] and [high]
irrespective of any object suffix.
My analysis is that the impersonal suffix is /-U/, which like any other /U/
consists of [round] and [high], and that these features are autonomous, due to
Decomposition of /U/, shown in (2). In this view, the impersonal suffix behaves
exactly like the verbal participle suffix discussed in §7.2.1. Hence, a form like
fGr6xw ‘tolerate!’ has an underlying /fGr6x-U/.
(26) Impersonal labialization and palatalization (/fGr6x-U/ → [fGr6xw])
f G r 6 x + X (Root)

Place

Dorsal
Labial =
= [high]
[round]
fGr6xw ‘Tolerate!’

12. The impersonal can also take the Jussive form with the prefix y6-, without incurring a meaning
difference. See §8.3.4 for discussion.
208 SOUND MUTATIONS

The autonomous features [round] and [high] of /-U/ float leftward independently.
The left-adjacent (to /U/) consonant is not a coronal obstruent and cannot be
targeted by [high], which remains afloat, as in (26). The last labial or velar is /x/,
which is targeted by [round]. This results in labialization. In this regard, the
impersonal suffix confirms the claim that /U/ labializes and palatalizes the
consonants that precede it.
An argument showing that an affixal /U/ floats only leftward comes from
(27a) Accusative and (27b) Malfactive of the impersonal (see Chapter 9 on case
suffixes), which according to the present analysis are derived as follows:
(27) Absence of rightward labialization
a. n6t’6r-U-y-a-m → n6t’6ryam ‘One has separated her.’
b. n6t’6r-U-p-a-m → n6t’6rpam ‘One has separated it to her
detriment.’
There is no labializable consonant in the stem. Had the /U/ floated in both
directions, m in (27a) and p in (27b) would have been labialized. But they are
not. This shows that there is no rightward floating (at least in affixes).

7.4.2 Interaction of impersonal labialization and palatalization

A comparison between the second and the third columns of (28a–c) shows that
velars are palatalized in the 2  but not in the impersonal. In (28a), the
velar is final and it is palatalized in the 2  while it is labialized in the
impersonal. The nonfinal velars in (28b) are also palatalized in the 2 
while they are not in the impersonal. Note that 2  palatalization targets
even labialized velars, cf. 2  vs. 2  in (28c), whereas these velars
are not targeted by the impersonal palatalization.
(28) 2  vs. impersonal palatalization
2  2  impersonal
a. fGr6x fGr6ç fGr6xw ‘Tolerate!’
b. nGk’Gm nGk’ Gm nGk’Gmw
y
‘Collect!’
k’GfGf k’yGfGf k’Gf wGf w ‘Cut the nails!’
c. k’ Gm
w
k’ Gm
y
k’wGmw ‘Stop!’
w y
nGk’ nGk’ nGk’w ‘Yell!’
w y
t’6]k’ t’6\k’ t’6]k’w ‘Be deaf!’
d. bGd6r bGde bwGd6r ‘Be first!’
g. kGtGf kGtif kGtGf w ‘Hash!’
sGr6f sGref sGr6f w ‘Fear!’
t’af t’7f t’af w ‘Write, patch!’
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 209

The stem-final r in (28d) is palatalized in the 2  (6r-I → 6y → e) whereas

it is not in the impersonal. In addition, a vowel preceding a stem-final labial is
fronted in the 2  but it is not in the impersonal, as in (28g). See e.g. Leslau
(1992: 436) for observations that velars, r and n are not palatalized in the impersonal.
Some solutions to account for the absence of palatalization in the imperson-
al, as in (28), have been proposed. The first, proposed in Hetzron (1971: 199)
and adopted in McCarthy (1983: 182) and Lieber (1988: 205), is that labialization
(i.e. linking [round] in (29)) takes precedence in time over palatalization (i.e. a
possible linking of [high] in (29)) and that the final velar is labialized. This
analysis assumes that velars, vowels and r could palatalize in the impersonal, as
they do in the 2 , but gives no account of the absence of r-palatalization
in bwGd6r, (28d). In this example, the target of [high] (i.e. the final r) is not
followed by the target of [round]. Yet, r is not palatalized, showing that ordering
labialization and palatalization cannot explain the absence of r-palatalization.
This forces us to state that r is not palatalized in the impersonal. In addition, the
ordering analysis stipulates that labialization prevents palatalization whereas we
see that even the basic labialized velar radicals of (28c) are palatalized in the 2
, showing that prior labialization does not prevent palatalization. Consider
[fGr6xw], (29), reproduced from (26).
(29) Impersonal labialization and palatalization
f G r 6 x + X (Root)

Place

Dorsal
Labial =
= [high]
[round]
fGr6xw ‘Tolerate!’
Given the fact that labialized velars can be palatalized, [high] in (29) could have
displaced the [round] of /x/, the way the 2  palatalization displaces [round]
in nGk’w-I → nGk’y ‘yell ()!’, from (28c). But this does not happen in (29), as
noted in Rose (1994b: 118–9). So the fact that final velars are not palatalized in
the impersonal remains a problem for the ordering solution. Furthermore, in the
Gurage language Inor masculine plural subject conjugation, coronals but not
velars are palatalized, e.g. tG-k6fc-uwa ‘you ( ) open’ (not *tG-k6ft-uwa,
from the stem k6ft) but tG-d6rg-uwa ‘you () hit’, (not *tG-d6rgy-uwa from the
stem d6rg). This also shows the presence of some triggers of palatalization which
210 SOUND MUTATIONS

target coronals but not velars. My suggestion is that this trigger is the back high
vowel /U/, as confirmed by Inor masculine plural conjugation where U is
realized as uw and yet triggers palatalization. Hetzron (1971: 199–200) and Rose
(1994b: 118) observe that coronals but not velars are palatalized also in Inor 
 subject conjugation, e.g. k6f6j-a ‘has opened’ (from –kfd) vs. d6n6g-a (not
*d6n6gy-a) ‘has hit’ (from –dng) even though there is no accompanying labiali-
zation or u. I have no account for palatalization in k6f6j-a.
The other problem with linking order is that it does not account for the
absence of nonfinal velar palatalization in the impersonal nGk’Gmw (not *nGk’yGmw)
and k’Gf wGf w (not *k’yGf wGf w), (28b). Note that, in contrast to Coronal Palatal-
ization, given in (5a), Dorsal Palatalization in (5b) does not require adjacency
between the target and the trigger. The fact that Dorsal Palatalization affects
nonfinal velars in the 2  but not in the impersonal remains unexplained
without the statement that the impersonal palatalization targets a final consonant.
Note that nonfinal coronals are not palatalized both in the 2  and imperson-
al due to Coronal Palatalization, which requires coronal targets to be left adjacent
to the trigger. So, if we eliminate velars, vowels and r from the list of palataliz-
able consonants in the impersonal, the fact that impersonal palatalization targets
only the final coronal obstruents follows from Coronal Palatalization and it is not
a particularity of the impersonal.
In this account, there will be two lists of palatalizable consonants: nonlabials
and vowels for 2  palatalization, and coronal obstruents for impersonal
palatalization. This listing solution was proposed by Hetzron (1971: 199, even
though he adopts the ordering solution for Chaha) and adopted by Rose
(1994b: 119). In my view, the listing solution not only overcomes the problems
encountered by the ordering solution but also ordering without the listing is
fallible (because final r and nonfinal velars are not palatalized in the impersonal)
and that, given the invariably required listing, ordering has no place in the
interaction of labialization and palatalization. Note also that listing, in conjunc-
tion with Coronal Palatalization, is sufficient to account for the interaction of the
two processes, cf. the second and third columns of (28). Thus, Hetzron’s (1971)
End Palatalization can be derived from Coronal Palatalization and the list.

7.4.3 Deriving the different lists of palatalizable consonants

Based on our discussion so far I hypothesize that the listing reflects the presence
of at least two different triggers of palatalization (/I/, found in front vowels and
the glide y) and /U/, found in back vowels and the glide w). I also assume that
a palatalizing /I/ attributes the feature [−back] (and a redundant [high]) to its
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 211

target while a palatalizing /U/ attributes the feature [high] to its target, and that
the difference between the two triggers gives rise to the two lists of palatali-
zation targets.
According to Bhat (1978: 54) “[t]ongue height of the following vowel (or
semivowel) is crucial for the palatalization of an apical consonant, whereas the
frontness of the tongue rather than its height is more crucial for the palatalization
of a velar consonant.” In other words, palatalizing a velar involves tongue
fronting to make it a prevelar. This fronting can be achieved by attributing the
[−back] of /I/ to a velar. But /U/ does not include [−back] so it cannot trigger
fronting of velars. Note also that in Chomsky and Halle’s (1968) terms, velars
are [+high, +back], so the [+high, +back] of /U/ cannot bring any change to
them. Palatalization of vowels (e.g. 6 → e) involves tongue fronting, and this
process requires [−back], a feature not found in /U/. This also explains why they
are not targeted by U-triggered palatalization. On the other hand, palatalizing
alveolars does not require tongue fronting, instead it involves tongue raising and
retracting, processes which can be achieved by the features [high, +back] found
in /U/. [high] in /U/ can trigger raising of the tongue blade, changing alveolars to
palatoalveolars. We now have an explanation for the separate list of palatalizable
consonants. Nonlabials (consonants and vowels) are targets of [−back] whereas
only coronals are targets of [high]. So the two lists of palatalizable consonants
derive from the intrinsic nature of the two different triggers.13
Palatalizing velars before front vowels and coronals before high or front
vowels, are reported in a variety of languages. According to Bhat’s (1978) list,
the following languages display coronal palatalization before a high back vocoid
(pages given below are those of Bhat 1978):
I. In Papago, t, d, s and n are palatalized before i, e and u (p. 54, from
Miller 1967)
II. In Tepehuan d is palatalized before i, e and u (p. 54, from Miller 1967)
III. In Basque, s is palatalized while adjacent to u (p. 54, from Lochak
1960)
IV. In Proto-Iranian, s is palatalized by a preceding i and u (p. 55, from
Anderson 1968)
V. In Sentani, d is palatalized by a neighboring i, y, u and w (p. 55,
from Cowan 1965)

13. It is unclear why /r/ in most cases does not pattern with coronal obstruents in being targeted by
U-triggered palatalization. This may be because Coronal Palatalization targets the Coronal node while
/r/ lacks this node (at least at the stage where palatalization occurs), as Rose (1994a) argues on
independent grounds.
212 SOUND MUTATIONS

VI. In Avesta, IE s was changed to š before i, u, k and r (p. 62, from

Anderson 1968)
VII. In Tswana, r becomes … šw when labialized (p. 57–8, from Cole 1955)
VIII. In Burushaski, dentals are palatalized before the plural suffix -o
which was probably -yo earlier (p. 74, from Lorimer 1935).
In addition to the above list, in Tigrinya numerals, in contact with back rounded
(uæ , å) vowels or the high central (G) vowel, s is changed to w (Voigt 1988: 527,
see also §7.7.4). Similarly, t in Japanese becomes affricate before /u/ (Tsujimura
1996: 32). Moreover, Press (1986: 3) states: “[T]he one undisputed source of y in
PIE is *ū …” A similar process occurs also in English where /u/ triggers palata-
lization, e.g. fact vs. factual [fæktwu6l], as well as y–insertion, e.g. unity [yu:n6tI]
(but see Chomsky and Halle 1968, Halle 1977, and Halle and Mohanan 1985 for
analyses in which palatalization is triggered by the inserted y). Furthermore, [ua]
in Akan triggers labio-palatalization whereby a single consonant is both labia-
lized and palatalized. According to Eshun (1993: 180), the labio-palatalized
consonants are produced by simultaneously rounding the lips and raising the
tongue towards the palatal region. All these examples show that (coronal)
palatalization can be triggered by a back vocoid whereas no dorsal palatalization
triggered by a high back vocoid is reported. This parallels Chaha /U/, which
triggers palatalization of coronals but not velars.

7.4.4 Raising in the impersonal subject and its absence in the 3SG MASC object

The impersonal subject and the 3  object differ in triggering the raising
of a root-final radical /A/ to [6]. The impersonal subject /-U/ of (30a) triggers
raising of the /A/ to [6] whereas the 3  object /-6U/ of (30b) does not
trigger such raising.
(30) Raising difference in the impersonal subject and 3  object
a. /UGgA-U-r-a/ → [wGgw6ra] ‘Let one pound  for her!’
b. /UGgA-Ø-r-6U/ → [wGgwar6] ‘Let you ( ) pound
verb + subject + benefactive + object  for him!’
My proposal is that /U/ of the 3  object suffix /-6U/ behaves like the /U/
of the impersonal and that, given the appropriate context, it should trigger raising
of /A/ to [6]. In my view, /A/ raises to [6] in (30a) because it is left adjacent to
/-U/. But /A/ and /U/ are separated by /-r/ in (30b), which explains the absence
of raising. Given that [g] is labialized in both (30a) and (30b), raising or its
absence cannot be attributed to labialization but to the underlying position of /U/
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 213

in the word. The absence of raising in (30b) also poses a problem for a shorten-
ing analysis of /A/ → [6]. As we will see next, the raising and its absence in
(30) parallel palatalization of stem-final coronal in the impersonal and absence
of palatalization in the 3  object.

7.4.5 Labialization without palatalization: the 3SG MASC object

The 3  object suffix in (31) labializes the nearest preceding labial or
velar but does not trigger palatalization.
(31) The 3  object labialization
a. /6-t’6öt’-ö-6U/ → 6t’6öt’Gw6 ‘I hold it to his detriment.’14
b. /6-t’6öt’-r-6U/ → 6t’6wt’Gr6 ‘I open it for him.’
c. /6-t’6öt’-n-U/ → 6t’6wt’Gn ‘I open it.’
subject + verb + case + object
Again, my claim is that the /U/ of 3  object suffix behaves like any other
/U/ and, given the appropriate context, it should trigger both labialization and
palatalization. However, the stem-final /t’/ and /U/ of (31a) are separated by the
unpalatalizable consonant /ö/ whereas Coronal Palatalization in (5a) requires
adjacency between the target and a trigger. This explains why /t’/ does not
palatalize. In addition, the intervening consonants /r/ and /n/ of (31b, c) are not
coronal obstruents so they are not targeted by U-triggered palatalization. The
absence of palatalization is due to the lack of the appropriate context (i.e. a
coronal obstruent left adjacent to /U/). So, the fact that the 3  object
labialization (in contrast to the impersonal, cf. (25)) does not entail palatalization
receives a satisfactory explanation. My analysis that the 3  object
labialization fails to entail palatalization only because of the lack of appropriate
context is supported by attested parallel forms of Muher to be discussed next.

7.4.6 The 3SG MASC object suffix in Muher

Consider the Muher forms in (32), which are parallel to (31c) of Chaha. Leaving
other processes apart, the stem-final coronal obstruent of (32a) is palatalized,
labial and velar of (32b) are labialized and r of (32c) is unaffected, as noted in
Rose (1996: 213). So, the 3  object suffix triggers labialization and
palatalization but not both at once (data from Rose 1996: 213).

14. When the case suffix -ö6 is used with the 3  object, as in (31a), it can also be
instrumental, i.e. 6t’6öt’Gw6 ‘I hold with it.’
214 SOUND MUTATIONS

(32) Labialization and palatalization triggered by the 3  object

Imperfective Imperative
a. tG-k6fGcc-t kGfGcc ‘(you) open it’
b. tG-n6fGk’k’w-t nGfGk’k’w ‘(you) break it off’
tG-k6tGff w-t kGtGff w ‘(you) chop it’
c. tG-m6t’t’Gr-t m6t’t’Gr ‘(you) choose it’
My position is that the 3  accusative object suffix of Muher is /-U/,
identical to its equivalent of Chaha. In addition, as I have argued so far, /U/
palatalizes only coronal obstruents. These are palatalized only if they are left
adjacent to a trigger, as stated in Coronal Palatalization (5a). Given that the
stem-final /t/ and /-U/ in (32a) are not separated by a consonant (-t of the
Imperfective follows /-U/) the structural description of Coronal Palatalization is
satisfied and it takes place accordingly. The 3  object suffix of Muher is
therefore one more argument in favor of the claim that /U/ triggers both labiali-
zation and palatalization. But it differs from Chaha in that both cannot occur at
once. This may be because the Place node of a Muher /U/ dissociates as a whole
(instead of its individual features) and docks on its target (either labializing it or
palatalizing it).

7.4.7 Masculine plural subject suffix in Inor

Inor masculine plural subject suffix triggers labialization and palatalization, (33).
(Again, this generalization about Inor also holds for Endegeň, see Leslau 1992: 468.)
(33) Inor Plural suffix (data from Berhanu Chamora, personal communi-
cation)
Imperative Imperative
( ) ( )
a. bGtGx b(w)Gtxw-ua ‘Uproot!’
b. gGms g(w)Gmww-ua ‘Break in big chunks!’
c. gGr6z gwGroŠ-ua ‘Age!’
d. ŠaöGr Šawr-ua ‘Return!’
e. nGz6z nGŠ6Š-ua ‘Dream!’
My analysis about Chaha was that it is the dissociated features of /U/ which, by
becoming autonomous, trigger labialization and palatalization. But what we see
above is that the intact plural suffix -ua can also trigger these processes.
My account is as follows. The masculine plural suffix is /-U:a/. The only
difference here is that the features of /U/ are not dissociated from their articu-
lators, i.e. they are not floating, as shown below. This difference is due to the
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 215

fact that Inor has a long vs. short vowel contrast. A totally floating /U/ (such as
the one in the Inor impersonal and Infinitive) is short. However, a /U/ which
triggers labialization and palatalization while it is in situ (such as the one in (34))
is long. In the latter case, the triggers of labialization ([round]) and palatalization
([high]) are dominated by (or not dissociated from) their respective independent
articulators Labial and Dorsal. Yet, the features spread to their respective targets.
In addition, because recursiveness is a well-known property of Inor labialization
(see Hetzron and Marcos 1966: 26), the spreading of [round] optionally continues
to preceding targets till it is blocked by an opaque segment. See Zoll (1996) for
an analysis of Inor labialization and palatalization as distinct morphemes, namely
masculine and plural, respectively.
(34) Inor Plural suffix as spreading
g G m s + Ua

Place

( ) Dorsal
Labial
[high]
[round]
g(w)Gmww-ua ‘Break up in big chunks’
Here, labialization and palatalization are clearly triggered by the suffix. Accord-
ingly, my analysis predicts that the rightmost labial or velar should be labialized
and a final coronal obstruent should be palatalized. As the examples in (33)
show, this prediction is borne out. Assuming that nGŠ6Š-ua is derived from –nz,
no root-internal coronal obstruent is palatalized and no labial or velar is labial-
ized in the presence of a following labial or velar.
The claim that /U/ triggers labialization and palatalization of preceding
consonants predicts that prefixal /U/ should trigger neither labialization nor
palatalization of a stem consonant. We will see in the following section that this
prediction is confirmed.
216 SOUND MUTATIONS

7.5 Word-initial /U/

7.5.1 Derivational prefixes involving /U/

A number of Chaha prefixes begin with /U/. The first among them is the
infinitive prefix w6-, e.g. w6-kGft ‘to open’, which attaches to every verb-forming
root. This prefix does not float and it triggers neither labialization nor palatal-
ization. My assumption is that the decomposition of /U/ proposed in (2) does not
apply in word-initial position. Accordingly, the features [round] and [high]
remain linked to their articulators and they surface as [w].
Some instrumental nouns, with which one performs the action denoted by
the verb, begin with the prefix /U/. These nouns and their corresponding
infinitives are listed in (35). (There are other nouns which, for instance, begin
with m6- as in m6-sk6k ‘peg’, from –sk, and m-at-raw-y6 ‘stretcher for carrying
dung’, from –rsA, but they will not be discussed here.)
(35) Infinitive Instrumental noun
a. w6-fGrt w6-f6^c-a ‘entrance (dividing the house in two)’
w6-gaj w6-g6^j-a ‘bamboo spatula for stirring’
w6-g6p(G)t w6-g6p6c-a ‘horse-racing field’
w6-sGrt w6-sr6c-a ‘pebble used to decorate bowls’
b. w6-dGrg w6-dr6gy-a ‘hammer’
w6-t’Grk’ w6-t’r6k’y-a ‘bowl in which one dips for water’
c. w-a-nt’Gr w-a-nt’Gy-6 ‘bowl in which one purifies butter’
w6-ftGr w6-ft6y-a ‘spindle’
d. w6-sif w6-sif-6 ‘awl’
w6-Xfa w6-raf w-6 ‘bellows’
In the instrumental nouns of (35) the prefix is accompanied by stem-final
palatalization. Coronal obstruents in (35a), velars in (35b) and r in (35c) are
palatalized. The last two properties do not characterize U-triggered palatalization.
I assume that these nouns have an instrumental suffix /-Ia/ (seen in Amharic
words such as m6-sö6r-ya ‘by which one breaks’) and that the /I/ triggers
palatalization. In addition, these nouns use the infinitive as their base, i.e. they
include the infinitival /U6-/ and the instrumental /-Ia/.
There also are different nouns with the prefix w6- but without the instru-
mental /-Ia/, as shown below.
(36) Infinitive Noun
w6-fc’ w6-fc’-6 ‘lower millstone’
w-aö w-aö-i(-n6t) ‘someone generous (generosity)’
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 217

w6-t’Gmd w6-t’m6d ‘trap’

w6-öda w6-öaj6 ‘discussion’
w6-r7 w6-re-t ‘sleep’
w6-nt’Gö w6-rt’6ö ‘irrigation channel’
w6-z6kGö w6-zg6ö ‘door’
The word-initial /U/ of the nouns listed in (35) and (36) does not float. A root-
initial /U/ shows the same behavior, as we will now see.

7.5.2 Root-initial /U/

A root-initial /U/ does not float, and triggers neither labialization nor palatalizat-
ion.15 The Jussive and Imperfective of the U-initial verbs of (37) (also the
Imperfective of (38)) show that /U/ is preserved if it is an onset. (See §5.4.3
concerning occlusivization of /U/ to [bw].)
(37) Jussive Imperfective
y6-war yG-w6r ‘spend the day’
y6-was yG-w6s ‘lend an object’
y6-wat’ yG-w6t’ ‘swallow’
y6-w7 yG-we ‘go down’
y6-w6r y-ar < /yG-w6r/ ‘go’
The onset /U/ is exceptionally deleted in the Imperfective y-ar, not *yG-w6r, and
its deletion is compensated by changing 6 to a. This deletion suggests that /U/ is
a medial radical, the initial radical beng *x as seen in xw6r (Inor) and xor (Geäez).
The verbs in (38a) are intransitives, which have a C1C26C3 Jussive stem,
whereas those in (38b) are transitives, which have a C1C2GC3 Jussive stem. As a
coda, a C1 /U/ of a C1C26C3 Jussive deletes, (38a), while that of a C1C2GC3
Jussive remains, (38b). A coda /U/ also remains in reduplicated verbs, cf. the
Frequentative Perfective of (38) (available only for certain forms).
(38) Jussive Imperfective Frequentative Perfective
a. y6-r6d < /y6-wr6d/ yG-w6rd a-wrand ‘descend’
y6-t’a < /y6-wt’6A/ yG-w6t’a a-wt’at’a ‘ascend’
y6-t’6k’ < /y6-wt’6k’/ yG-w6t’(G)k’ ‘fall’

15. In two historically U-initial verbs, cona ‘has sat down’ (from *t-UrA, as found in wGr6 ‘sitting’) and
cot ‘has worked’ (from *t-UAt, as found in wat ‘plowing’), the reflexive t- has been reanalyzed as a first
radical and it is palatalized due to /U/. This historical palatalization before [o] is not active presently as we
will see in §7.6.2. See Polotsky (1938: 158) and Leslau (1979: vol. III) for arguments that these verbs are
historically U-initial. Palatalization in these verbs also supports the position that /U/ causes palatalization.
218 SOUND MUTATIONS

b. y6-wk’Gr yG-w6k’Gr a-wk’ak’6r ‘agitate’

y6-wk’Gs yG-w6k’Gs ‘blame’
y6-wt’Gr yG-w6t’Gr t6-wt’6t’6r ‘invent’
y6-wtGr yG-w6tGr t6-wt6t6r ‘draw tight’
c. y6-ga < /y6-wgGA/ yG-w6ga t6-wgaka ‘pierce’
y6-sd < /y6-wsd/ yG-w6sd ‘take’
As an exception, the /U/ of a C1C2GC3 Jussive is deleted in (38c). See Berhane
(1991: 37–45) and Raz (1983: 61) for comparable deletions in Tigrinya and Tigre
respectively.
The absence of compensatory lengthening, e.g. [y6-ga] (cf. *[y6gga] and
*[y6ka]), may be due to a prohibition against the spreading of a root-medial
consonant to a stem-initial C slot. On the other hand, if we add the prefixes a-t-
‘negation-2’ to wGga ‘pierce!’ we obtain [a.tG.ga] ‘do not pierce!’, not *[at.ga].
This shows that t and g are not adjacent, as two adjacent intervocalic consonants
(VCCV) cannot be separated by [G]. Moreover, I showed in §1.3 that a prefix t
undergoes assimilation with stem-initial coronal stops, e.g. /yG-t-t’6k’6r/ →
[yGt’t’6k’6r] ‘he hides himself’ whereas such assimilation cannot occur in [a-tG-
ga] because [G] separates the two consonants.
The deleted /U/ triggers no labialization, as k’ in y6-t’6k’ and g in y6-ga,
from (38), are not labialized. In addition, the surface [w] in (38) shows that root-
initial /U/ does not float. This, in my view, means that Decomposition of /U/,
(2), does not apply in this context. In other words, the features of a root-initial
/U/ (whether it is deleted or not) are not autonomous. Deletion (which I view as
the delinking of the Root node of /U/) then is different from Decomposition of
/U/. This explains why a deleted /U/ does not float and why it triggers neither
labialization nor palatalization.

7.5.3 Nonfloating /U/ in [ w6t]

To the best of my knowledge, [−w6t] is one of the only two suffixes (the other
one being -u ‘is’) in which a nonfloating /U/ is found in Chaha. (Note that [w]
in words like k’yGnaw-6 ‘proximity’, is a labialized /ö/, cf. the root –k’Irö ‘near’.
See §7.8 for the [u] in k6f6txum ‘you ( ) have opened .) This suffix
has multiple functions. Combined with adjectives, it forms a feminine superla-
tive, (39a), with a common noun it forms a more specific common noun, (39b),
and with a bound stem it forms a proper noun, (39c). It also forms an agent for
some professions and is similar to the English -smith, -er or -ist, (39d).
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 219

(39) Forms with the suffix [−w6t]

a. ac’Gr ‘short’ ac’Gr-w6t ‘the shortest ()’
fat’ura ‘tall’ fat’ur-w6t ‘the tallest ()’
g6mb6na ‘dark’ g6mb6n-w6t ‘the darkest ()’
m6rkama ‘beautiful’ m6rkam-w6t ‘the most beautiful ()’
n6c’6 ‘white’ n6c’-w6t ‘the whitest ()’
b. t’Grar ‘shadow’ t’Grar-w6t ‘shadow image’
mGsGr ‘look’ m6sre-w6t ‘mirror’
c. Proper names (f): aöwG-w6t, antG-w6t, d6n-w6t, sarçG-w6t, zGm-w6t, etc.
d. Gnj6ra ‘type of bread’ y-Gnj6r-w6t ‘who bakes Gnj6ra for a living’
w6xra ‘clay’ y6-w6xGr-w6t ‘potter’
t’Gt’a ‘cotton’ y6-t’Gt’-w6t ‘who spins for a living’
-w6t can be listed as an exception to floating. It can also be treated as a stem, in
which case the words in (39) will be compounds. If we adopt the second option,
that /U/ does not float will follow from it being stem-initial. Note that w6t ‘kind
of ant, minor clan of shallow genealogical depth’ exists also as an independent word.
The generalization about word- and stem-initial position is that Decomposi-
tion of /U/ does not apply, so [round] and [high] of /U/ do not float. This may
also be because floating is only leftward. We will discuss the behavior of
noninitial radical /U/ in the following section.

7.6 Roots involving non-initial /U/

7.6.1 Verbs beginning with a round vowel

A few verbs, listed in (40), begin with a round back vowel. I assume that /U/ in
(40a) is not initial since initial /U/ surfaces as [w], e.g. w6t’a ‘has gone out’. In
these verbs, /U/ targets a vowel. Note that an affix /U/ does not target vowels,
as shown by the impersonal n6t’6r, not *not’or, where /U/ does not surface
because no radical can support it. However, in cases where there is no preceding
labial or velar consonant, a radical /U/ targets an adjacent vowel, as in (40). The
targeted vowel is part of the stem in (40a) while it is a prefix in (40b).
(40) Vowel rounding triggered by a radical /U/
Perfective Imperfective Jussive
a. od y-ud y-od ‘tell’
on6 y-on y-on ‘cry’
ow6 yG-w6w y-ow ‘defile’
220 SOUND MUTATIONS

b. fd or a-w6d y-a-w6d y-fd ‘be in need’

fna or a-(w6)na y-a-(w6)ra y-fra ‘put  somewhere’
ft’a or a-(w6)t’a y-a-(w6)t’a y-ft’a ‘take out, sing’
The parenthesized w6 in (40b) can optionally be deleted and, in that case, there
will not be rounding, i.e. fna, a-w6na and a-na are in free variation.

7.6.2 Medial /U/ between two consonants

A root-medial /U/ floats and labializes a preceding labial or velar consonant, as

in (41a).16 In cases where C1 is a coronal, as in (41b), /U/ does not labialize a
following labial or velar consonant but it is realized as a vowel [o].17 But /U/
is realized as [f] in (41c) due to an infixal [a] (introduced with the prefix t6-, to
express a habitual action).
(41) U-medial triradicals
Perfective ImperfectiveJussive
a. f w6x yG-f w6x y6-f wGx ‘wipe’
m 6t
w
yG-mot y6-mwGt ‘die’
k’w6m yG-k’w6m y6-k’wGm ‘stand up’
b. a-sor y-a-sor y-a-sor ‘digest well ()’
dok’ yG-dok’ y6-dok’ ‘be confused’
not’ yG-rot’ y6-rot’ ‘run’
t’om yG-t’om y6-t’om ‘fast’
t6-tos yG-t-tos y6-t-tos ‘be in a mess’
c. t6-dff yG-d-dff y6-d-dff ‘be improper’
In (41), /U/ is realized even in the absence of a labializable radical, so in this
respect it differs from a suffixal /U/. However, like a suffixal /U/, it does not
affect a labial or velar to its right. Representative examples of (41a, b) can be
depicted as follows.

16. The stem mot, found in the Imperfective of (41a) and the noun mot ‘death’, is an exception to
this generalization.
17. The different aspectual vowels (6-6 of Perfective, 6-G of Imperfective and G-6 of intransitive
Jussive) do not change the quality of the vowel. However, instead of the attested Jussive y-a-sor,
from (41b), we expect *y-a-sur because it is a transitive verb, cf. /I-a-sGUGr/.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 221

(42) a. k’ 6 U6m b. t 6 U6s

Place Place

Dorsal Dorsal
Labial = Labial =
= [high] = [high]
[round] [round]
k’w6m ‘has stood up’ tos ‘has been in mess’
The dissociated [round] of /U/ in (42a) targets the preceding radical /k’/ while
[high] remains afloat because it has no preceding target to palatalize. On the
other hand, [round] in (42b) is not preceded by a labial or velar consonant so
either it should remain afloat (which is the case for a [round] coming from a
suffix) or dock on the vowel. Because a medial glide is allowed to fuse with a
vowel the [round] of /U/ docks on the vowel /6/ and changes it to [o]. The [high]
of /U/ in (42b) could have palatalized /t/, yielding the unattested *cos, parallel to
the historical palatalization in cot (cf. footnote 14), but it does not. This is
problematic to my claim that /U/ palatalizes a left-adjacent coronal obstruent. It
may be that [round] must linearly precede [high]. See Elmedlaoui (1992: 385) for
a view that w linearly precedes y.

7.6.3 Medial /U/ in I-second quadriradicals

A list of some U-medial triradical verbs in different Ethiopian Semitic languages

(from Leslau 1979: vol. III) is given below in the first column. Their Chaha
cognates are given in the second column. It can be seen that only in the second
column are initial coronal obstruents palatalized.
(43) U-second triradicals vs. I-second quadriradicals
Other Ethiopian Chaha
Semitic languages
d6w6s (Selt’i) jos ‘has bashed’
s’or (Tigrinya) c’or ‘has carried, been sick’
t6-s’aw6t (Tigrinya) t6-c’fd ‘has conversed’
z6w6r (Selt’i) Šor ‘has gone around, wandered’
An important observation to be made here is that the verbs in the first column do
not include a radical /I/, but a medial /U/. However, their Chaha cognates have
palatalization. These Chaha verbs, in contrast to the verbs of (41b, c) and their
222 SOUND MUTATIONS

analysis in (42b), suggest that a medial /U/ palatalizes an initial coronal obstru-
ent. However, my analysis is that labialization and palatalization in these verbs
are not triggered by the same phoneme /U/. Rather, they contain both /I/ and /U/,
i.e. jos derives from –dIUs, as shown below.
(44) d I 6 U6s

Place Place

Dorsal Dorsal
= Labial =
[–back] = [high]
[round]
jos ‘has bashed’
[−back] of the second radical /I/ targets the preceding /d/ and palatalizes it to [j]
while [round] of the third radical /U/ targets the preceding /6/ and rounds it to [o].
In addition to having to treat these verbs as exceptions with respect to
palatalization of the initial radical, an analysis which assumes that jos is a
triradical –dUs cannot account for the fact that the verb conjugates like a quadri-
radical. Its C1 is depalatalized and followed by /6/ in the Jussive, /d6IUs/ →
/d6Us/ → [dos] ‘bash!’ Had palatalization in [jos], (44), been due to /U/ there
would have been no explanation for depalatalization in the Jussive [dos].

7.6.4 Final /U/ and a penultimate coronal obstruent

In all instances, a root-final /U/ triggers labialization of the rightmost labial or

velar and palatalization of a penultimate coronal obstruent. This is shown by the
triradicals of (45a) and quadriradicals of (45b).
(45) Final U-triggered labialization and palatalization
Root Perfective Imperfective Jussive
a. –fsU f w6w6 yG-f w6w y6-f w(G)w ‘fart’
–k’zU k’w6Š6 yG-k’w6Š y6-k’w(G)Š ‘has dysentery’
–ksU a-kw6w6 y-a-kw6w y-a-kw(G)w ‘remove fibers’
b. –öAtU a-m-bwac6 y-a-m-bwac y-a-m-bwac ‘start to walk’
–fAt’U f wac’6 yG-f wac’ y6-f wac’ ‘mow’
–grt’U a-]-gwGrac’6 y-a-]-gwGrac’ y-a-]-gwGrac’ ‘nibble flesh’
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 223

–k’rt’U k’wGr6c’6 yG-k’wr6c’ y6-k’w6^c’ ‘take a handful’

–mAsU mwaw6 yG-mwaw y6-mwaw ‘wipe, rub’
–rösU18 nGw6w6 yG-rw6w y6-row ‘get used to’
In the same way that affix-triggered labialization entails palatalization, radical-
triggered labialization, as in f w6w6 ‘has farted’, entails palatalization. According
to my proposal, the [round] of the final radical /U/ labializes the rightmost labial
or velar while its [high] palatalizes the left-adjacent coronal. Thus, f w6w6 will
have the following representation.
(46) Labialization and palatalization triggered by a final-radical /U/
f 6 s 6 U

Place

Dorsal
Labial =
= [high]
[round]
f w6w6 ‘has farted’
As is always the case, [round] labializes the nearest preceding labializable
consonant (/f/) and [high] palatalizes the left-adjacent coronal obstruent (/s/).
Note that the absence of [6] in the Jussives of (45) shows that they are not
quadriradicals of the type –CUCI.
The Tigrinya cognate of f w6w6 is f6s6w (see Berhane 1991: 158). That the
two consonants in Tigrinya have no secondary articulation indicates that labial-
ization and palatalization in Chaha are both triggered by the final /U/. This
supports my proposal.
The 6-6 sequence of f w6w6 is parallel to that of k6f6t ‘has opened’, so the
second 6 in both f w6w6 and k6f6t precedes the final radical. In addition, if a C of
a C16C26 pattern is labialized the trigger (/U/) is the final radical (C3), so f w6w6
in (45a) would be C16C26U3 and k’wGr6c’6 in (45b) would be C1C26C36U4. Based
on this, a number of predictions can be made with respect to the C1C26C36U4
(and C16C26U3, mutatis mutandis) pattern. (a) Only C3 (and only if it is a coronal
obstruent) can be palatalized (note that vowels are not targeted by [high]). (b) If
C3 is labialized, C1 and C2 may be labializable (as in t’Gr6k’w6 and a hypothetical

18. nGw6w6 can also be derived from –rUsI, in which /I/ palatalizes /s/ and /U/ remains in situ because
it cannot find a host. I know of no criterion to judge which is the best analysis.
224 SOUND MUTATIONS

fGr6k’w6). (c) If C2 is labialized, C3 is not labializable but C1 may be labializable

(as in fGk’w6n6 and sGxw6n6), and (d) if C1 is labialized, no other consonant is
labializable (as in k’wGr6c’6). Most of these predictions are borne out, but we will
see in §7.6.6 that r3 is palatalized due to U4. Before this I show how my analysis
allows us to derive a subclass of the vocoids called ‘weak’ in Prunet and Petros
(1996: 329).

7.6.5 Deriving a subclass of the ‘weak’ glides

The verbs which I analyze as U-final triradicals, e.g. f w6w6 ‘has farted’, undergo
both labialization and palatalization. An analysis which assumes that labialization
and palatalization are triggered respectively by the radicals /U/ and /I/ is forced
to assume that f w6w6 has four radicals –fUsI even though it conjugates like a
triradical. On the other hand, Prunet and Petros (1996) claim that there are only
two types of verbal stem templates in Chaha, a short one containing three C slots
(Root nodes) and a long one containing four C slots (excluding gemination) and
that a verb employs either one or the other — not both. Analyzing a verb such
as f w6w6 as –fUsI is problematic for this claim, and, in order to solve this
paradox, Prunet and Petros (1996: 329) propose that one of the vocoids is ‘weak’,
a radical without a Root node.
(47) Weak vs. strong /U/
a. Weak /U/ b. Strong /U/ X
|
Root node
|
U U
In the present proposal the weak glide in a verb such as f w6w6 derives from the
independently motivated claim that /U/ triggers both labialization and palatalizat-
ion. My claim is that the weak /U/ is the feature [round], without the feature
[high], of strong /U/, i.e. the two floating features of f w6w6 in (46) originate from
a single Root node and that explains why the verb conjugates like a triradical
with only three Root nodes. See Prunet and Petros (1996: 320ff.) for arguments
against analyzing consonants with a secondary articulation, such as the ones in
f w6w6, as underlying. However, I shall note that the need for weak /U/ cannot be
dispensed with entirely, given the four consonants and a vocoid in verbs such as
k’wGr6t’6s ‘has pinched’. See Prunet and Petros (1996) for a fairly exhaustive list
of such verbs.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 225

7.6.6 Final /U/ preceded by a penultimate /r/

In the discussion so far, it has been argued that /r/ is not targeted by U-triggered
palatalization. However, the verbs in (48) begin with a complex consonant,
which in my analysis is a sequence of two phonemes. The Perfective n indicates
that they have a penultimate /r/, and Imperfective e and Jussive i indicate that
they contain a final radical /I/. These properties suggest, at first glance, that they
are quadriradicals.
(48) Root Perfective Imperfective Jussive
–frU a-f w6n6 y-a-f we y-a-f wi ‘rest’
–frU f w6n6 yG-f we y6-f wi ‘yield’
–k’rU k’w6n6 yG-k’we y6-k’wi ‘roast (e.g. beans)’
On the other hand, quadriradicals have penult gemination in the Imperfective,
e.g. yG-gr6tGm (not *yG-gr6dGm) ‘he breaks in two’ whereas /r/ is not geminated in
the Imperfective of (48). So, if this verb were a quadriradical the Imperfective
yG-f we would be *yG-f w6n. In addition, quadriradicals in the Jussive have a vowel
6 after C1, e.g. y6-g6rdGm (not *y6-gGrdGm) ‘let him break in two!’ while these
verbs do not. Both properties actually indicate that the verbs in (48) are triradi-
cals. In addition, C2 of quadriradicals is never geminated whereas /r/ in (48) is
geminated in the Perfective showing that they are triradicals and not quadrirad-
icals of the form –C1UrI. We must therefore find a way to resolve the paradox
in (48) that these verbs have characteristics of both triradicals and quadriradicals.
This is readily explained in my analysis if we assume that labialization and
palatalization (e, i) in (48) are triggered by a final radical /U/, parallel to what
we saw in f w6w6, (46).
The verbs of (49) have all the above mentioned properties of quadriradicals.
In addition, they have a C1C2 cluster in the Imperfective stem, as in yG-gr6tGm ‘he
breaks in two’, and the epenthetic vowel G after C1 in the Perfective, as in
gGr6t6m ‘has broken in two’, showing that they are quadriradicals even though
they do not have four surface consonants.
(49) Root Perfective Imperfective Jussive
a. –fk’rU fGk’w6n6 yG-fk’w6n y6-fk’we ‘whistle’
–sxrU sGxw6n6 yG-sxw6n y6-sxwe ‘be thorny, act mad’
–t’örU t’Gw6n6 yG-t’w6n y6-t’we ‘depress’
–zörU zGw6n6 yG-zw6n y6-zwe ‘envy’
b. –dörU a-dwan6 y-a-dwan y-a-dw7 ‘confuse’
–özrU a-wzan6 y-a-wzan y-a-wz7 ‘prepare food for gods’
–mArU mwan6 yG-mwan y6-mw7 ‘be unsatisfied’
226 SOUND MUTATIONS

c. –frU a-f wran6 y-a-f wran y-a-f wr7 ‘soften a cow’s teats’
–k’rU a-k’wran6 y-a-k’wran y-a-k’wr7 ‘fry’
–örU a-wran6 y-a-wran y-a-wr7 ‘miss, be unsure’
I suggest that the verbs in (48) and (49c) are triradicals whereas those in (49a, b)
are quadriradicals. All end with the radical /U/. Thus, the underlying form of
(48) k’w6n6 ‘has roasted (e.g. beans)’ is /k’6rr6U/ and that of (49a) t’Gw6n6 ‘has
depressed’ is /t’ö6rr6U/.19 The features of the final /U/ dissociate according to
(2) and they labialize the nearest preceding labial or velar and palatalize the
penultimate /r/. See also Petros (1996b: 170–1) for a similar proposal. In addition,
/r/ is geminated and palatalized in the Perfective, but Chaha has no phonetic \
except before palatalized velars, so palatalization of geminate /r/ is invisible on
the surface. But /r/ is simplex in the Jussive. Palatalizing the simplex /r/ results
in y, and when the y is not preceded by a vowel, as in (48), it becomes i.
Because it is preceded by 6 in (49a) the two sounds fuse, resulting in e. When it
is preceded by a, as in (49b), it becomes 7. Notice, however, that this is the first
time in this chapter that we see /r/ being targeted by U-triggered palatalization.
Thus, we can state that only a final radical /U/ triggers palatalization of /r/ (given
that /r/ is left adjacent to /U/ at the level of radicals).20
Note that the observations and analyses given for the verbs in (48) and (49)
also hold for the ones in (45). The claim that /U/ is both [round] and [high],
which can be separated as in (2), explains two important problems in Chaha
phonology. First, it gives a straightforward account of why labialization entails
palatalization. Second, it resolves the paradox that verbs listed in (45), (48) and
(49) behave as if they were formed from both triradicals and quadriradicals.

7.6.7 Final /U/ preceded by nonlabializable consonants

My analysis predicts that in a word such as f6c’6 ‘has ground’ palatalization can
be triggered only by /I/ because a final /U/ would also have labialized /f/. On the
other hand, in cases where there are no labializable consonants, U-triggered
palatalization does not entail labialization, e.g. /t’as-U-öö-a-m/ → [t’awpam]

19. Again, note that the Tigrinya cognate for k’w6n6 is k’6l6w (see Berhane 1991: 157) whereas its
Amharic cognate is k’olla.
20. An anonymous reviewer has suggested that these verbs be better analyzed as I-final where the
U will be weak glide preceding the r, in which case the generalization that U palatalizes only coronal
obstruents will be maintained in its generality. But this will lead us to deny the existence of U-final
verbs with a penultimate r. Besides, Tigrinya cognates such as k’6l6w suggest that these verbs are
U-final.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 227

(infringe-impersonal-malfactive-her-past) ‘one has infringed (on it) to her

detriment’. Accordingly, palatalization in a word such as s6c’6 ‘has drunk’ can
be triggered either by a final /U/ or /I/, and the [round] of /U/ may remain afloat
due to a lack of target.
Now, compare the two columns below.
(50) U-final vs. I-final triradicals
a. ‘6s’6w (Geäez) ac’6 (Chaha) ‘has closed’
t6-c’6w6 (Chaha) ‘has convalesced by special food’
t6w6 (Amharic) c6 (Chaha) ‘abandon, leave’
b. n6s’6y (Geäez) n6c’6 (Chaha) ‘has plucked out’
s6t6y (Geäez) s6c’6 (Chaha) ‘has drunk’
The Geäez and Amharic forms show that the verbs in (50a) are U-final while
those in (50b) are I-final. The U-final verbs of (50a) display palatalization in
Chaha showing that /U/ palatalizes the immediately preceding /t’/ and /t/. But
[round] of /U/ has no target to labialize, so it remains afloat in the verbs whereas
it surfaces as [w] in the noun c’Gww-6r ‘food for convalescing’. Even when it is
realized as [w] it triggers palatalization of the preceding /s/ in c’Gww-6r. In
addition, the proposed /U/ of c6-m appears by rounding a to f in the objectless
2  Imperative tf ‘do not do STH, let it be!’ (cf. 2  Imperative
taö-6ma.)

7.7 U-triggered palatalization in Tigrinya

Tigrinya, along with Tigre and Geäez, is a North Ethiopian Semitic language
whereas Chaha is one of the South Ethiopian Semitic languages. The two groups
share many properties showing that they have a common origin, as noted in
Hetzron (1972a: 17ff.). Now we will see that my proposal is supported by facts
from Tigrinya.

7.7.1 U-medial verbs

While discussing U-medial triradical verbs (type A), Berhane (1991: 46) observes:
First, if the second radical is w, there is a 50% chance that the third one is y.
Second, if the second radical is w, there is a 30% chance that the first one is
a guttural (9, H) or a glottal (?, h), and close to a 70% chance that the first
one is an anterior coronal (there are no initial labials and velars followed by
w). Finally, roots with glides as both second and third radicals only include w
followed by y: y is never followed by w.
228 SOUND MUTATIONS

These generalizations, which by themselves look puzzling, follow from my

analysis with minor assumptions. Berhane’s first generalization (that 50% of
w-medial type A verbs are y-final) follows if we assume that they are biradicals
(–C1U2) paired with the short template (CVCVC) and that w and y derive from
the Decomposition of /U/ (dissociation applying only to [high]), as shown below
for t6w6y ‘has turned’.
(51) C V C V C

t 6 U 6

Place

Dorsal
Labial =
[high]
[round]
t6w6y ‘has turned’
[round] remains linked but the dissociated [high] fills the empty C slot. His third
generalization (if C2 and C3 are glides, w precedes y) as well follows from (51).
(Note that in Gurage a labialized consonant always precedes a palatalized
consonant when the two processes have a common trigger). In addition, (51)
predicts that –C1U2 should not yield a verb such as C16w6w (to be contrasted
with C1C2C2, e.g. k’6f6f ‘has clipped’, where C2 is a consonant), and this
prediction is borne out according to Berhane’s (1991) exhaustive list of verbs
containing glides in Tigrinya.
His second generalization (that there are no initial labials or velars followed
by w) follows if we assume that [round] docks on a preceding labial or velar
(m6w6t → mw6t) and that results in its vocalization (mw6t → mot). This also
explains why from 45 w-final verbs listed in Berhane (1991) no verb has a
labialized consonant. On the other hand, from 93 y-final verbs in the same list 16
of them have a labialized consonant. What this shows is that the source of the
final y and labialization in the 16 verbs is a final /U/, i.e. a verb such as gw6s6y6
‘looked after’ derives from /g6s6U6/. This also supports the proposed Decompo-
sition of /U/.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 229

7.7.2 U-final verbs

Leslau (1941: 117) states: “[l]es verbes à w final se présentent sous trois formes:
1) à w final; 2) à y final; 3) bilitères, par suite de la réduction des diphtongues.”
According to him, the Imperfective of –ftU ‘love’, may have the following four
forms: [yG-f6ttuæ w], [yG-f6ttuæ ], [yG-f6ttGy] or [yG-f6tti] whereas –sty ‘drink’ cannot
have *[yG-s6ttuæ w] or *[yG-s6ttuæ ]. In other words, /U/ may lose its feature [round]
to yield [Gy, i] but /I/ cannot acquire [round] to yield [uæ (w)]. That /U/ can surface
as [uæ (w)] and as [Gy, i] shows that its [round] and [high] may realize independent-
ly and supports my proposal.21
Alternations (free variations) in Tigrinya also show that my proposal is
correct. Consider the following U-final verbs (from Berhane 1991: 49–50).
(52) a. f6t6w6 ~ f w6t6y6 ‘he loved’
Aaff6w6 ~ Aaff w6y6 ‘he got rashes’
bar6w6 ~ bwar6y6 ‘he ploughed’
b. ’an6w6 ~ ’an6y6 ‘it is ruined’
law6w6 ~ law6y6 ‘it became loose’
c’6n6w6 ~ c’6n6y6 ‘it smelled’
In (52a), w remains at the end in the first alternant so the preceding labials are
not labialized. However, w becomes y in the second alternant and that triggers
labialization of the labials. But in (52b), the consonants preceding w are not
labializable. So there is no labialization in both alternants. In my view, the
[round] of /U/ is what labializes the labials and the [high] of /U/ is what remains
at the end and surfaces as y, supporting my claim that [round] and [high] of /U/
can realize independently.

7.7.3 Forms involving labialization and palatalization

Voigt (1988: 529ff.) discusses a number of Tigrinya words in which /s/ is

palatalized (see also Denais 1990: 280–295). In these words, one or more of the
conditions in (53) is met:

21. Ambivalence between w and y is seen also in Tigre, in two exceptional glide-medial verbs. Raz
(1983: 62) states: “[t]he verb mota shows distinctive features of a medial w inflexion … and …
a medial y inflexion … The collected examples of s» oma suggest that the radicals w and y occur in
free variation in this particular verb.” We may assume that decomposition does not apply in
nonalternating verbs.
230 SOUND MUTATIONS

(53) a. The word contains [w], as in wGwt’i ‘in’.

b. The word contains a back round vowel, as in daguwa ‘small
millet’ and wGkkor ‘sugar’.
c. A velar in the word is labialized, as in w6l6k’w6 ‘be hot’. (But
there are a few exceptions, e.g. mGwkin ‘poor’.)
d. There is no labialization if all consonants of the word are
labials and coronals, as in wGm ‘name’.22
Voigt (1988: 531) states that in the words exemplified in (53a–d), “labialization
appears as a suprasegmental feature” and “has an impact on more than one seg-
ment.” The source of labialization (/U/ in my analysis) and how the supraseg-
mental feature functions may be seen in different ways. For instance, in Voigt’s
view, (leaving the vocalism aside) a word such as w6l6k’w6, (53c), consists of the
three plain radicals slk’ and an autosegment w appearing on each radical, i.e.
(slk’)w → sw,lw,k’w → w,l,k’w. My view is that words in which /s/ is palatalized
include the vocoid /U/. So, w6l6k’w6 consists of the four radicals sUlk’. The
features [round] and [high] of /U/ are autonomous. Its [round] labializes the velar
while its [high] palatalizes the /s/. (The targets and directions of floating for
[round] and [high] differ from Chaha). In both views, a single phoneme /U/
triggers both labialization and palatalization, giving further evidence for my
claim.
In my view, where the vocoid is realized as [w], (53a), or [u], (53b), the
features of /U/ are linked with their articulators but the feature [high] spreads to
/s/ and palatalizes it to [w]. Accordingly, wGwt’i ‘in’ may be represented as (54a)
and daguwa ‘small millet’ as (54b):
(54) U-triggered palatalization in Tigrinya as spreading
a. U G s t’ i b. d a g U s a

Place Place

Dorsal Dorsal
Labial Labial
[high] [high]
[round] [round]
wGwt’i ‘in’ daguwa ‘small millet’

22. While the plain vs. round alternation above in (52) affects labials, labials are not rounded in the
dialects discussed in Voigt (1988).
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 231

This parallels the spreading from an anchored /U/ of the Inor plural suffix to the
stem (but in the opposite direction). Because the features are linked with their
articulators we have the independent sounds [w] in wGwt’i and [u] in daguwa.
In words where the condition (53c) or (53d) is satisfied, i.e. w6l6k’w6 ‘be hot’
and wGm ‘name’, the features of /U/ are dissociated from their articulators and float
toward a host. In this view, labialization and palatalization in w6l6k’w6 behaves the
way /U/ does in /t’GööGs-U/ → [t’GbwGw] ‘well roasted’, (Chaha, (3)). These words
contain /U/, whose [round] targets velars and whose [high] targets /s/.23
(55) U-triggered labialization and palatalization in Tigrinya as floating
a. s 6 U l 6 k’ + 6 b. s U m

Place Place

Dorsal Dorsal
Labial = Labial =
= [high] = [high]
[round] [round]
w6l6k’w6 ‘be hot’ wGm ‘name’
Since Tigrinya labials (in the forms discussed by Voigt 1988) are not labializable
segments, [round] of /U/ in (55b) has no docking target. So, it remains unpro-
nounced. Absence of a docking target for [round] also explains why we obtain
words such as w6ll6l6 ‘sew’. But see Voigt (1988: 530) for a different explanation.

7.7.4 The numerals

In the Tigrinya numerals listed in (56), we find [s] and no round vowel. (Data
from Leslau 1941: 127–9, organized by Voigt 1988: 525; my [w, ’, G, 6], correspond
to their [š, ‘, 6, ä] respectively. (See also Ullendorff 1955: 134–9).
(56) Tigrinya numerals containing [s] and no round vowel
Multiples of ten Ordinals24 Cardinals
’Gsra (20) — —
s6lasa, salasa (30) sal(G)say (3rd) s6l6ste» (3)
h» amsa (50) h» am(G)say (5th)

23. There are instances where other coronal obstruents also palatalize (see Voigt 1988: 532–4). So
the target does not have to be /s/ alone.
24. Voigt (1988: 525) reports that, in some dialects, /s/ can be palatalized even in the ordinals.
232 SOUND MUTATIONS

sGssa, sGlsa (60) sad(G)say (6th)

s6b’a (70) sab(G)’ay (7th)
s6manya (80) sam(G)nay (8th)
t6s’a (90)
— ’as(G)ray (10th) ’ass6rte» (10)
On the other hand, the numerals of (57) include a palatalized [w] and round vowel.
(57) Tigrinya numerals containing [w] and a round vowel
h» ammuwte» (5)
wuæ dduwte» (6)
wob’atte» (7)
womm6nte» , wommonte» (8)
What is uncontroversial about the numerals in (57) is that palatalization in them
is not triggered by front vowels. Ullendorff (1955: 136) and Voigt (1988: 527)
note that it is triggered by back rounded or high central vowels. My view is that
only the back round vowels [o, uæ ] are responsible for the palatalization. Note that
[o] in these forms is a fusion of /6/ and /U/ while [uæ ] is that of /G/ and /U/. Thus,
[o, uæ ] include [round] and [high] of /U/. I have shown throughout this chapter
that, in the Gurage languages Chaha, Inor and Muher, the [round] of /U/
labializes while its [high] palatalizes. In my view, the facts of Tigrinya numerals
parallel the generalizations observed in Gurage. The [o, uæ ] include /U/, whose
[high] palatalizes /s/ to [w].
If we assume, following Ullendorff (1955: 136) and Voigt (1988: 527), that
/s/ is also palatalized when it is followed or preceded by the high central vowel
[G], the absence of palatalization in the multiples of ten (’Gsra, sGssa and sGlsa)
will remain an exception. Voigt (1988: 525) accounts for this by assuming that
[w] is “characteristic of the cardinal numbers” and that [s] in the cardinal numbers
of (56) is not palatalized because it is not followed by a high vowel. He explains
the optional palatalization in the ordinal tawG’ay of (58) by assuming that it is
derived from the cardinals.
(58) Tigrinya numerals containing [w] without a round vowel
Ordinal Cardinal
tas(G)’ay, tawG’ay (9th) tGw’atte» (9)
However, if we assume, as I do, that /s/ is palatalized when the numeral includes
/U/, as this clearly happens in a number of other contexts discussed in Voigt
(1988) and in the preceding subsections, we will have a unified account for
palatalization. In addition, our explanation will not need to resort to a morpho-
logical class of cardinals as well as a high vowel, which is an odd natural class.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 233

That is, palatalization will occur when the phonological context (presence of /U/
in the word) is met. A problem for this analysis is that palatalization in (58)
occurs in the absence of /U/. A possible solution to this is to assume that these
forms include /U/, as in the South Ethiopian Semitic language Argobba Š6h» wt’6\\
‘nine’ (see Leslau 1979: vol. III, 717), but its [round] does not surface due to a
lack of host.
In this section, I have shown that the independently motivated Decomposi-
tion of /U/, (2), explains the labialization and palatalization triggered by a
unique phoneme /U/ in Tigrinya. While Tigrinya and the other Gurage languages
display this shared characteristic the other South Ethiopian Semitic languages
such as Amharic do not, as U-triggered labialization and palatalization are not
attested in Amharic.

7.8 On floating vs. nonfloating /U/

I have stated that there is no /w/ vs. /u/ contrast in Chaha, i.e. [w] and [u] come
from /U/. It is also worth examining whether Chaha distinguishes two — floating
and nonfloating — types of /U/ or if the floating vs. nonfloating nature of /U/ is
derivable from other aspects of the grammar. For instance, the impersonal subject
/-U/, (59a), and the 3  object /-6U/, (59b), float visibly.
(59) Floating visibility
a. /k6f6t-U-r-a-m/ → [k6f w6cram] ‘One has opened it for her.’
b. /k6f6t6-Ø-r-6U-m/ → [k6f w6t6r6m] ‘He has opened it for him.’
c. ? → [k6f6txwGm] ‘I have opened .’
d. ? → [k6f6txum] ‘You ( ) have
opened .’
On the other hand, /U/ in (59c, d) does not seem to be floating. For instance,
while /U/ in (59c) docks on /x/ the one in (59d) does not dock on the second
person suffix /x/, nor does it reach the stem in the Imperfective, e.g. [tG-k6ft-o]
(not *[tG-k6f wt-6]) ‘you ( ) open ’. So the question is whether the /U/
in (59a, b) is different from the one in (59c, d). In other words, what is the 
of (59c, d)?
I propose that the difference between the visibly floating /U/ of (59a, b) and
the seemingly nonfloating /U/ of (59c, d) lies in the fact that the latter is right
adjacent to a host. This is shown in the following derivations of the 1 and 2
. (See §1 of the appendix to this chapter for some previous factual errors
about these suffixes.)
234 SOUND MUTATIONS

(60) a. /k6f6t-xU-m/ → [k6f6txwGm]

open-1-past
‘I have opened .’
b. /k6f6t-x6-6öU-m/ → [k6f6txum]
open-2- -past
‘You ( ) have opened .’
The /U/ floats and docks on the immediately preceding host /x/ in (60a), but its
movement is local, hence, undetectable. Similarly, the /U/ in (60b) is preceded
by /ö/. The /U/ floats and docks on the immediately preceding /ö/. However, the
movement is local and a labialized /ö/ vocalizes (öw → u, this happens systemati-
cally in Chaha), thereby making the floating obscure. Note that there is no
vocalization in related languages such as Muher where the masculine plural
suffix is /-mU/, e.g. [s6bb6rxGmwGm] (from Leslau 1992: 196). The m is present
also in many related languages, cf. e.g. Hetzron (1968: 158) for Gogot and
Leslau (1956: 101) for Gafat, etc. That the masculine plural suffix of Chaha
includes /ö/ is also supported by independent evidence. For instance, the presence
of a labial element in the plural suffix is attested in forms where the stem ends
with a vowel, e.g. b6k6-öo-m/b6k6-wo-m ‘they () have cried’, from –öxI. The
/U/ in (60a, b) is not, therefore, an exception to floating.25
Accordingly, we can state that every noninitial /U/ of Chaha floats to a
preceding host. The seemingly nonfloating /U/ floats and docks on a host such
as /ö/, which finally vocalizes. The vocalization is sometimes evident, as in
/t’Göt’-n-U/ → [t’ut’Gn] /hold-accusative-it/ ‘hold it!’, where the seemingly
nonfloating [u] is in fact öw. In my view, /U/ may surface independently only if
it is part of the root and none of the other root consonants can support it, as in
w6t’6r ‘has invented’ and t6-zwat’6r ‘has stretched oneself’. In this account, there
is no floating vs. nonfloating /U/ difference.
The suffix -u ‘it/he is’, as in bet-u ‘it is a house’, is an exception to
floating, so it triggers neither labialization nor palatalization of the stem conso-
nants. Given that it is a verb the -u here can also be treated as a stem. A
nonfloating [w] arises also due to onset creation, to break a hiatus, as shown in
/t6mari-u/ → [t6mariyu]/[t6mariwu] ‘he is a student’.

25. Polotsky (1938: 164) proposes a diachronic *mū as the plural masculine marker. This view is
accepted also in Leslau (1967: 1153, footnote 20). As Polotsky shows the suffix is mū in Geäez and
mw in Muher supporting that the reconstruction is correct. However, from a synchronic point of view,
mw does not vocalize to [w/u] in Chaha while öw does. Due to this I preferred positing /öU/ → [u]
instead of /mU/ → [u]. See §8.4.2 on the vowel intervening between /x/ and /ö/ in (60b).
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 235

7.9 Conclusion

In this chapter I have shown simultaneous processes of labialization and palatal-

ization occurring in a number of contexts listed below. These are illustrated with
a representative example. In all but the last four, the labialized segment linearly
precedes the palatalized one.
Table 7.1. Summary of contexts with simultaneous labialization and palatalization
(61) Type (or category) of the word Language Examples
I. Verbal participle Chaha t’GbwGw ‘well roasted’
II. Noun I Chaha wGpwac6 ‘choice’
III. Noun II Chaha f wGcf wGc-6(r) ‘ crumbled’
IV. Noun III Chaha 6gwŠ-a ‘ally’
V. Adjectival/nominal participle I Chaha a-örak’wc’-at ‘spoiled’
VI. Adjectival/nominal participle II Chaha k’wGrc’Gm ‘splinters of wood’
VII. Adjective and/or noun Chaha gwGcm-a ‘without stew’
VIII. Infinitives Inor 6-gwr6w-t ‘to age’
IX. Impersonal Chaha k6f w6c ‘one has opened’
X. Masculine plural subject Inor g(w)GroŠ-ua ‘age ( )!’
XI. U-final verbs Chaha f w6w6 ‘has farted’
XII. Distribution of w and y Tigrinya t6w6y ‘has tuned’
XIII. Alternation Tigrinya f6t6w/f w6t6y ‘has loved’
XIV. Other alternation Tigrinya f6t6w/f6t6y ‘has loved’
XV. 3  object Muher kGfGcc/kGtGff w ‘open/chop it!’
XVI. Labialization and palatalization Tigrinya w6l6k’w ‘has been hot’
XVII. Numerals Tigrinya wuæ dduwte» ‘six’
XVIII. Ambivalence between w and y Tigre limut/lGmayGt
‘so that he die/imperfective’

I proposed that simultaneous labialization and palatalization are triggered by a

unique phoneme /U/. This is achieved by dissociating the features [round] and
[high] of /U/ from their articulators, which allows them to be autonomous and
affect different segments independently. This analysis explains naturally why
labialization entails palatalization. In addition, it eliminates the need for discon-
tinuous morphemes. For instance, the impersonal suffix is a unique underlying
phoneme /U/ which has four surface realizations (i.e. w(…)y, w, y and Ø)
depending on the nature of preceding consonants. I argued that there is no [w]
vs. [u] contrast, as both derive from /U/. Similarly, there is no floating vs.
nonfloating /U/. Consequently, [w(…)y, w, Ø, w, u] and some instances of [y] are
all allophones of /U/.
236 SOUND MUTATIONS

Labialization and/or palatalization triggered only by inflectional affixes

(impersonal subject, 3  object, 2  and Inor infinitive and  )
have been discussed in the literature. But this chapter has documented and
explained a variety of hitherto unnoticed grammatical categories. Labialization and/or
palatalization triggered by derivational affixes (forming adjectival/nominal and
verbal participles as well as nouns) were discussed and given a unified account
with those triggered by inflectional affixes. Similarly, it has been shown that
labialization and/or palatalization triggered by a radical /U/ supports the analysis.
My proposal, without having recourse to stipulations or grammatical catego-
ries, also gives plausible explanations for the interaction of labialization and
palatalization. For example, there has not been an explanation as to why the
impersonal subject triggers both labialization and palatalization whereas the 3
 object triggers only labialization. (Note that an analysis which attributes the
impersonal palatalization to the suffix -i fails to account for palatalization in the
absence of -i and does not explain why this /I/ has a different target (coronal
obstruents) than the 2  /I/ (nonlabials)). In addition, why 2  palatal-
ization targets nonlabials while impersonal palatalization targets only coronal
obstruents (the two different lists of palatalizable consonants) was so far
arbitrary; it could have been the other way around. But, according to the present
proposal, the very nature of the triggers (i.e. the features [high] of /U/ and
[−back] of /I/) not only explains why their targets differ but it also predicts the
widely attested generalization that (a) front vowels have a wider range of
palatalization targets than high back vowels and (b) palatalization of velars is
mostly triggered by front vowels whereas that of coronals is triggered by both
front and high back vowels (see Bhat 1978). Furthermore, the general restrictions
on Coronal Palatalization (that the target must be left adjacent to the trigger)
explain cases of labialization which do not entail palatalization, such as /U/ of
the 3  object of Chaha (in contrast to the same suffix in Muher).
The proposal that /U/ can both labialize and palatalize in Gurage was given
striking support by parallel facts observed in Tigrinya. Palatalization in Tigrinya
numerals and simultaneous labialization and palatalization in words such as
w6l6k’w ‘has been hot’ are now satisfactorily explained as originating from a
unique /U/.
Finally, the decomposition of /U, I/ proposed in this chapter readily explains
what I called, in the introduction to the book, a consonant enrichment at the
expense of vowel impoverishment. We have seen that almost every /U, I/
decomposes. The decomposed /U, I/ have enriched the consonant inventory by
introducing a secondary articulation. We have also seen that the original site of
the decomposed /U, I/ is either vowelless or occupied by an epenthetic [G]. It then
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 237

follows why the frequency of [u] (and any back vowel, as they all include /U/)
and [i] (and any front vowel, as they all include /I/) is much smaller than that of
any central vowel (which does not decompose to dock on a consonant). Back and
front vowels are impoverished with the rise of a secondary articulation.

Appendix 7
Some factual errors concerning labialization

1. The Perfective 1SG vs. 2PL MASC subjects

The 1 [−xwG] in (1a) is often confused with the 2  [xu] in (1b), both
repeated from (60), as in Polotsky (1938: 146), Leslau (1950: 28) and Hetzron
(1977: 64).
(1) a. /k6f6t-xU-m/ → [k6f6txwGm]
open-1-past
‘I have opened .’
b. /k6f6t-xG-öU-m/ → [k6f6txum]
open-2- -past
‘You ( ) have opened .’
There is a phonetic resemblance between the two but they are not the same
everywhere. This is especially true in CwGC and CuC contexts such as xwGm and
xum in (1). Even here, they are not pronounced in the same way but it may be
difficult for a nonnative linguist to detect the difference. As Polotsky
(1938: 146) notes, in cases where -xw is at the end (where there is no epenthetic
[G]), as in a-]-k6f6t-xw ‘I have not opened ’, it becomes clear that the first
person is -xw and not -xu, cf. *a]k6f6txu.
Polotsky’s (1951) misunderstanding concerning these suffixes originates
from Leslau (1950). Some amendments are in order:
I. Polotsky’s (p. 31) yad6k-xu-n b6x6r6 ‘if I throw him’ should be corrected as
y-ad6g-xwG-n b6x6r6; yad6k-xu-n b6x6r6 can only mean ‘if you ( )
throw me’. The same correction goes for g6th6r-xu-nG(m) ‘I put him to bed’.
II. y6-c’6k’os-k6 k’ar ‘what I have asked thee’ (p. 31) should be y6c’6k’w6s-k6
k’ar.
III. b-ōd-Gx6 ‘if I tell thee (masc.)’ (p. 32) should be corrected as b-od-k6; b-od-
x6 can only mean ‘if you ( ) tell’. The same correction goes for ab-
x6-m ‘I have given thee’.
238 SOUND MUTATIONS

IV. n6k6ö-ku-m c’or-ku-m ‘I found and loaded’ (p. 32) should be corrected as
n6k6ö-xwG-m c’or-xwG-m. n6k6ö-ku-m c’or-ku-m can only mean ‘I found and
carried you ( )’. In addition, x6r-ku-m ‘you () have become’
should be x6r-x-u-m. The x of the subject suffixes does not strengthen to
[k].
V. y6t’6pwaxw6 (i.e. y6-t’6pw6-xw-w6) ‘with which I have sucked’ (p. 31) should
be corrected as y6-t’6pw6-x-w6. The 1 -xw is never used before object
suffixes, hence, *y6t’6pwaxw6. Here, [w] is a labialized instrumental case
marker /-ö/, whose derivation is as in (2).
(2) /y6-t’6öö6U-x-ö-6U/ → [y6-t’6pw6xw6]
past-suck-1-instrumental-3 
‘with which I have sucked’
[xw] in (2) is a cluster different from the secondary articulation in [xwG], (1a),
and the simple phonetic CV [xu] of (1b). (See Petros 1996a: 136–7 for arguments
to analyze the prefix y6- of (2) as a past tense marker.)

2. Labialization in the Perfective 1SG subject vs. the 3SG MASC object

The Perfective 1 subject has two suffixal allomorphs: /-x/ and /-xU/ → [xw].
The suffix /-x/ is used before object suffixes, e.g. g6t6r-xG-r-a-m ‘I have put it
(e.g. the baby) to sleep for her’. The allomorph /-x/ was unknown in previous
studies and, due to that, some misconceptions have arisen concerning the source
of [w], as in g6t6rxwGr6m ‘I have put it to sleep for him’. For instance, the
absence of [w] on segments preceding /-x/, cf. *gw6t6rxwGnGm, is considered an
exception to 3  object labialization in Polotsky (1971: 548). Hetzron
(1971: 196) also claims that the 3  object labialization has been blocked
by the labial character of the 1. Finally, McCarthy (1983: 187, note 5)
attributes it to: “[…] (vacuous) labialization of the suffixal labiovelar xw.”
It is true that the object suffix [w] does not reach the stem in the Perfective
1 subject conjugation. However, according to my analysis, this is because [w]
docks on /-x/. So /-x/ in words such as [g6t6r-xG-n-U-m] → [g6t6rxwGnGm] ‘I have
put him to sleep’ is labialized due to the object /-U/. Accordingly, the point that
both Polotsky (1951: 548) and Hetzron (1971: 196) make, i.e. that: “[…] the last
labializable consonant must not necessarily be part of the root […]” (as formulat-
ed by Hetzron), is intact since the subject /-x/ is labialized due to the object, as
in [g6t6r-xG-n-U-m] → [g6t6rxwGnGm]. As noted in Polotsky (1951: 548) and
Hetzron (1971: 196), the consonants of subject and case suffixes can be labial-
ized if they are the rightmost labial or velar.
 LABIALIZATION AND PALATALIZATION TRIGGERED BY /U/ 239

3. Labialized consonants of the stem and suffix triggered labialization

The data in (3a) are found in McCarthy (1983: 183). The same data are written
differently as in (3b) in Leslau (1967: 1159), Johnson (1975: 35, note 4) and
Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994: 317, they refer to Hendriks (1989)). (The
suffixes 6m (Personal) and im (Impersonal) are omitted). Based on (3b),
Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994: 317) claim that: “the morphological labiali-
zation skips over the root’s labialized /mw/ and docks on the unlabialized velar
to the left.” Hetzron (personal communication with Johnson, see Johnson
1975: 35, note 4) disagrees with the forms in (3b) and believes that those in (3a)
are correct. Nevertheless, both forms in (3a) and the Personal form in (3b) are
inaccurate. The correct forms are as shown in (3c).
(3) Personal Impersonal
a. t6gmw6mw6t’ t6gmw6mw6c’ ‘rinse’
b. t6gmw6mw6t’ t6gwmw6mw6c’ ‘rinse’
c. t6-gwm6m6t’ t6-gwmw6mw6c’ ‘rinse’
The Personal t6-gwm6m6t’ in (3c) has four distinct radicals: –gUmt’. The features
of /U/ dock on consonants that precede it so [round] labializes /g/ (see also
Prunet and Petros 1996: 331). In addition, when the impersonal suffix /U/ is
added, as in t6-gwm6m6t’-U, the features of the suffixal /U/ dock on the conso-
nants that precede it. So [round] labializes /m/ and [high] palatalizes /t’/ without
skipping over any labialized consonant. Skipping (which incurs crossing of
association lines) does not occur in any context, e.g. e.g. fGk’w6n6 ‘he has
whistled’ vs. fGk’w6n6 (not *f wGk’w6n6) ‘one has whistled’ (from –fk’rU).
 C 8

Subject Affixes

8.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to argue that the subject affixes of Chaha comprise
two independent syntactic positions. (See Halefom 1994 for comparable analysis
of Amharic Nonperfective subject affixes.) The proposal eliminates the problem
of discontinuous morphemes from the analysis of Chaha subject affixes and
allows us to give a principled account of the choice of object suffix allomorphs
known as Light and Heavy (to be discussed in Chapter 9). In addition, the
proposal correctly predicts blocking of third person singular object labialization
by some affixes.
Nouns in Chaha do not have number and gender markers, e.g. at bet ‘one
house’ vs. sost bet ‘three houses’, except for rare lexical differences in human
nouns: 6rc/dengya ‘boy/boys’, g6r6d/gGred ‘girl/girls’, mGs/g6m6ya ‘man/men’,
mGwt/Gwta ‘woman/women’ (see also Leslau 1950: 16, Hetzron 1977: 52 and Ford
1991: 288). I am also aware of only two nonhuman nouns with different forms
in the singular and plural: 6ram/6r7 ‘cow/cows, cattle’ and d6k/m6g6ra ‘calf/
calves’. Plural is marked either by adding a cardinal number or a definite article
to a noun which itself lacks number specifications. The agreement suffixes on
the verb indicate whether a noun is singular or plural.
Only the two nouns g6r6d/gGred ‘girl/girls’ and mGwt/Gwta ‘woman/women’ as
well as the feminine pronouns can trigger [Feminine] agreement on the verb in
Chaha. Nouns that are modified by a superlative () suffix -w6t trigger a
[Feminine] agreement, e.g. m6rk-am-w6t ot’7t tG-c6n-te (beauty-ful-superlative
() singer she-come-future) ‘the most beautiful woman singer is going to
come’ (see also §7.5.3 on this suffix). Other nouns do not have grammatical
gender but they are [Masculine] by default. This triggers [Masculine] agreement
on the verb regardless of the biological gender. If a noun triggers [Feminine]
agreement on the verb it is necessarily human. A feminine nonhuman subject
cannot trigger [Feminine] agreement, e.g. 6r7 yG-g6ö-o (cows 3-enter- )
‘cows are entering’, and not *6r7 yG-g6ö-6ma (cow 3-enter- ).
242 SOUND MUTATIONS

This chapter is organized as follows. In §8.2 I separate subject affixes in

two classes (variable and invariable) and argue that each class belongs to a
different syntactic position.1 Following Halefom (1994), I assume that one of
the positions is a subject clitic and the other is a subject agreement. Section 8.3
presents alternating prefixes and §8.3 discusses alternating suffixes. It is argued
that the alternations receive a better account by the proposal. Some concluding
remarks are given in §8.5.

8.2 Variable vs. invariable subject affixes

The subject affixes of Ethiopian Semitic languages divide into two types which
I label “variable” and “invariable.” Variable affixes are not constant; they are
aspect-sensitive. For instance, the phonological content and linear order (with
respect to the stem) of the 1 affix varies according to the aspect of the verb,
it is -xwG in the Perfective, (1a), and 6- in the Imperfective, (1b).2
(1) Chaha subject conjugation
a. Perfective b. Imperfective
Singular Plural Singular Plural
1st k6f6t-xwG-m k6f6t-n6-m 6-k6ft nG-k6ftG-n6
2 k6f6t-x6-m k6f6t-xu-m tG-k6ft tG-k6ft-o
2 k6f6t-çG-m k6f6t-xGma-m tG-k6fty tG-k6ft-6ma
3 k6f6t6-Ø-m k6f6t-o-m yG-k6ft yG-k6ft-o
3 k6f6t6-cG-m k6f6t-6ma-m tG-k6ft yG-k6ft-6ma
Impersonal k6f w6tyG-m yG-k6f wtyG-m
On the other hand, invariable subject affixes are constant and are insensitive to the
aspect of the verb. For example, the phonological content and the linear order of
the 1 suffix is -n6 in the Perfective, (1a), and Imperfective, (1b). The 1 prefix
nG- of (1b) is not found in (1a), which implies that it is variable. This variable vs.

1. The variable class of affixes corresponds to the “person” markers and the invariable class of
affixes corresponds to the “number” and “gender” markers of Petros (Banksira) (1996a, 1997).
2. The forms discussed in this chapter are extracted from an expanded conjugation of the root kft
‘open’, given in Appendix 9. The suffixes of the Imperfective are used also in the Imperative/
Jussive. There are -x/-xw, -n6/-ne and -c/-c6 alternations but these will only be discussed in §8.4. We
may disregard the final -m of the Perfective as it is irrelevant to the present discussion.
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 243

invariable affix distinction holds in all Ethiopian Semitic languages.3

Notice that even though each affix is able to express the 1 subject, both
nG- and -n6 are used — one of them redundantly. Similar redundancy is found
also in the 2  in that even though palatalization alone is sufficient to
express 2  the second person prefix tG- is used concomitantly. In addition,
there is no formal parallelism between the plural of (1b), where the agreement
marker is both a prefix and a suffix, and the rest, where the agreement marker
is either a prefix or a suffix but not both. As an attempt to solve these problems
I propose that there are two syntactically independent subject positions, abbrevi-
ated as Q1 and Q2. The template in (2a) is thus [[[stem] Q1] Q2] while the one
in (2b) is [[Q1 [stem]] Q2]. In both, Q1 is adjacent to the stem while Q2 is not.4
(2) Analysis of Chaha subject conjugation5,6
a. Perfective7 b. Imperfective
Singular Plural Singular Plural
1st k6f6t-xwG-Ø-m k6f6t -Ø-n6-m 6-k6ft-Ø nG-k6ftG-n6
2 k6f6t-x6-Ø-m k6f6t-x-o-m tG-k6ft-Ø tG-k6ft-o
2 k6f6t-x-I-m k6f6t-x-6ma-m tG-k6ft-I tG-k6ft-6ma
3 k6f6t6-Ø-Ø-m k6f6t-Ø-o-m yG-k6ft-Ø yG-k6ft-o
3 k6f6t6-cG-Ø-m k6f6t-Ø-6ma-m tG-k6ft-Ø yG-k6ft-6ma
Impersonal k6f6t-Ø-U-m yG-k6ft-U-m

3. In all Ethiopian Semitic languages the  ⁄ and the palatal   suffixes are present
in all conjugations while the other singular suffixes are absent. On the other hand, the 1 suffix is
present in all conjugations in some languages such as Gogot and Muxer (Hetzron 1968: 159) and
Selt’i (Leslau 1992: 286) while it is present only in some conjugations in languages such as Amharic
(Halefom 1994: 148), Gafat (Leslau 1956: 101), Geäez (Dillmann 1907, conjugations), Harari (Leslau
1992: 286), Soddo (Hetzron 1968: 159), Tigre (Raz 1983: 55ff.) and Tigrinya (Berhane 1991: 176ff.).
4. In languages like Amharic the 1 affix is variable so it should be categorized as Q1. See Halle
(1992) on Q’s as abstract morphemes and Petros (1996a) for a number of cases in which a morpheme
appears on the opposite side of the stem based on different conditions.
5. The suffixes /U, I/ are floating so they do not surface independently. As shown in Chapter 7, /U/
triggers labialization of the nearest preceding labial or dorsal as well as palatalization of a left-
adjacent coronal obstruent, whereas /I/ triggers palatalization of the nearest preceding target.
6. I argued in §7.8 that the   -(6)u includes /ö/, i.e. it is /-6öU/. In this view, the derivation
of -x-u ‘2 ’ will be: /x6-6öU/ → /xGöw/ → /xGu/ → [xu] and that of -o ‘ ’ will be:
/-6öU/ → /6öw/ → /6u/ → [o]. See Leslau Polotsky (1938: 164) and Leslau (1967: 1153) on the
reduction of labialized *bw and *mw to u or o. See §8.4.2 concerning the /6/ of /-x6/ and /-6öU/.
7. I assume that the Perfective stem ends with 6 as in k6f6t6-m. The final 6 truncates when followed
by a CV, e.g. k6f6t6-x6-m6 → k6f6t-x6-m or a vocoid, e.g. k6f6t6-o-m → k6f6t-o-m. The 6 of k6f6t6-cG-m
does not truncate because the c that follows it is a simplified geminate cc (hence it is not followed
by a CV). The geminate cc is seen in geminating languages such as Amharic, e.g. k6ff6t6cc, not
*k6ff6t6c.
244 SOUND MUTATIONS

The reader may notice that some of the overtly realized Perfective suffixes are
Q1 while others are Q2. The linear order of Q1 (i.e. whether it is a suffix or a
prefix) varies according to aspect; it is the first suffix in the Perfective and the
prefix in the Imperfective. The morphosyntactic feature values of Q1 have no
role in determining its linear order with respect to the stem. But the phonological
content of Q1 varies according both to the aspect of the verb and its morpho-
syntactic feature values. Accordingly, the aspects Perfective or Imperfective must
be encoded in the lexical entries of Q1 affixes. Thus, Q1 is a fused aspect and
subject clitic. In this account, the suffix Q1 of the Perfective and the prefix Q1
of the Imperfective hold one and the same syntactic position. In other words,
even though the linear order and phonological content of Q1 differs from one
aspect to the other, it represents a unique/fused syntactic head in both cases. On
the other hand, the linear order of Q2 is invariable and its phonological content
varies according only to the subject of the verb. Aspect has no impact on Q2; this
marks only subject agreement. Given this distinction, the dichotomy between
variable and invariable subject affixes makes sense: Q1 (aspect + subject clitic)
is variable whereas Q2 (subject agreement) is not. The head Q1 gets/copies aspect
and the morphosyntactic features of the subject from the verb. The head Q2
copies all the morphosyntactic features of Q1 save the aspect.
While studying the Semitic verb conjugation one should observe that in
some forms we can tell the aspect of each stem by looking only at the stem
alternation, e.g. k6f6t- / -k6ft, from (2). This suggests that the verb stem encodes
aspect and that stem and aspect are inseparable. On the other hand, the cited
stems are never found without an affix and a single stem may convey different
aspects based on the affix it takes, as in y6-kGft ‘let him open’ vs. w6-kGft ‘to
open’. The participle kGfcGt6 ‘having opened’ (known as the t-conveb) is also
formed from the same stem kGft with a suffix -It6. In these examples, the aspect
of the verb can be distinguished based only on the affixes (y6- is Jussive, w6- is
infinitive and -It6 is participle), suggesting that affixes and aspect form a
constituent. In other words, aspect forms a constituent with both the stem and the
Q1 affix: [Verb stem [affix aspect Verb] affix affix] (order irrelevant). In addition,
aspect is phonologically distinct neither from the verb stem nor the Q1 affix. The
whole constituent [Verb stem [affix aspect Verb] affix affix] cannot therefore decom-
pose to its individual constituents. This difficulty receives a plausible account in
the representations proposed in (3a, b).
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 245

(3) a. Perfective b. Imperfective

Q2 Q2

Q1 [+Perf] Q2 Q1 [–Perf] Q2
-n6 -n6
V Q1 V Q1
-Ø
k6f6t V Q1 V
ti nG- k6fti
k6f6t-Ø-n6(-m) nG-k6ft-n6
‘We have opened.’ ‘We open/are opening.’
Notice that variable (or Q1) subject suffixes are found only in the Perfective
(they are prefixes in the Imperfective) whereas invariable ones have the same
linear order and phonological content in both Perfective and Imperfective aspects.
Given these representations, we can state that Q1 and everything beneath it is
specified for aspect whereas everything above Q1 is not so specified. In addition,
Q1 has aspect features and these can trigger verb raising. Thus, you can find Q1
in different positions relative to the verb. For instance, the Perfective aspect of
Q1 in (3a) does not trigger verb raising so Q1 remains in its suffix position. On
the other hand, the Imperfective Q1 in (3b) triggers verb raising, and that brings
Q1 to a prefix position. This explains why the linear order of Q1 is variable. In
contrast, Q2 does not include aspect features, thus never triggers verb raising.
This explains why it always appears as a suffix.

8.2.1 Q1 as aspect and subject clitic

In Distributed Morphology, which I assume in this chapter, grammatical posi-

tions such as Q1 are fully specified morphosyntactic feature matrices whereas the
affixes to be inserted in these positions are only partially specified.8 For an
affix to be inserted at a node such as Q1 it should not contain any incompatible

8. For different analyses of subject agreement affixes in Distributed Morphology framework, see,
among others, Noyer (1992), Halefom (1994, for Amharic), Halle (1997), Halefom and Lumsden
(1998) and Lumsden and Halefom (1999). (See, for example, Bender and Fulass (1978), Baye (1994)
and Frew (1994) for a general description of the Amharic verbal system.) Fulmer (1990) shows that
the linear order of some affixes in Afar depends on the phonology of the stem. My view is
compatible with her claim but I restrict the class of variable suffixes of Chaha, i.e. the linear order
of Q1 varies depending on the Perfective or Nonperfective nature of the stem while that of Q2 is
invariably suffixal.
246 SOUND MUTATIONS

specifications. For example, the affix in (4a), specified for the features [−Perfect,
−Plural, +Feminine, +3], is incompatible with a Q1 specified as [+Perfect] so it
cannot be inserted because they do not agree in the feature [+Perfect]. On the
other hand, an affix with all, some or even none of the specifications of Q1 can
be inserted at Q1 as long as the affix does not contain an incompatible specifica-
tion. The Imperfective prefixes of Chaha can thus be specified as follows.9
(4) Imperfective prefixes (= Q1)
a. t- [−Perfect, −Plural, +Feminine, +3] 3 
b. 6- [−Perfect, −Plural, +1] 1
c. N- [−Perfect, +1] 1
d. t- [−Perfect, −1, −3] 2
e. y- [−Perfect] Elsewhere
The reader may notice from the conjugation in (2) that word initially, these
prefixes are augmented to a syllable by adding an epenthetic vowel [G], which is
omitted in (4). When the nasal in the first person is followed by a consonant it
agrees with it in place, so we can say that it is unspecified for place. I conse-
quently write it as N-. In addition, [y] of the prefixes may vocalize when it is
noninitial, e.g. t-y-k6ft → tik6ft ‘while he opens’ and a-y-k6ft → ek6ft ‘he does
not open’, so it can be written as an archiphoneme /I/ but I am writing it as y-
following the tradition.
Chaha uses [+Feminine] only when the subject is [+Human]. A nonhuman
subject cannot be [+Feminine] even when its natural gender is feminine, cf. z(Gx)
6ram yG-t-waka ‘this cow fights’ vs. z(Gx) wGr yG-t-waka ‘this bull fights’, where
there is no difference in agreement. This shows that the prefix y- in (4e), as well
as any affix in Chaha, should not be specified as [−Feminine] (because no affix
is used exclusively for masculine gender). The prefix y- is also used in the
impersonal. But the impersonal affix has no person specification as it can be
used while the subject may be thought of as the first, second or third persons.
This is a very good indication that y- is the elsewhere prefix and it is not
specified as [+3]. Notice also that, as long as we are dealing with human
language, the speaker (i.e. [+1]) and the addressee (i.e. [−3, −1]) imply [+Human].
Thus, first and second person as well as third feminine, i.e. (5a–d), imply [+Human].
The Q1 suffixes are specified as in (5), where (4a–c), imply [+Human]. All
the specifications of the affix -c in (5a) are found in a Q1 specified as Perfective

9. I view the two t’s in (4a) and (4d) as homophones. I use the person features [±1, ±3] for
convenience, first person is abbreviated as [+1], second person as [−1, −3] and third person as [+3].
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 247

third singular feminine. Here, the morphosyntactic feature specification of Q1

totally matches that of the affix, so that affix is inserted. However, such total
matching is not always achieved. For instance, no affix in (5) matches in person,
number and gender a Q1 specified as Perfective third plural feminine. All the
affixes in (5a–c) contain at least one feature specification that is incompatible
with the Perfective third plural feminine. In such a case, the Elsewhere Perfective
-Ø is inserted.
(5) Perfective Q1 suffixes
a. -c [+Perfect, −Plural, +Feminine, +3] 3 
b. -xw [+Perfect, −Plural, +1] 1
c. -x6 [+Perfect, −1, −3] 2
d. -Ø [+Perfect] Elsewhere
Notice that the suffixes -c and -xw are not specified equally. The suffix -c is
[+Feminine] whereas -xw is not [+Feminine]. Similarly, -c includes all the
specifications of -x6 while -x6 has no specification for number and gender.
Accordingly, -c is the most specified item in (5) so it should be inserted first.
The remaining items are inserted following the order in (5). (However, notice that
[−1, −3] means second person so it has no more specifications than [+1] or [+3].)

8.2.2 Q2 as subject agreement

The Q2 suffixes are specified as in (6). These partially specified items are
inserted at a compatible subject agreement node, Q2. The node is filled following
the order in (6), which starts from the most specified form and goes to the least
specified one. The suffix -I in (6a) is the most specified as it marks person,
number and gender.
(6) Subject agreement (= Q2)
a. -I [−Plural, +Feminine, −1, −3] 2 
b. -6ma [+Plural, +Feminine, −1]  
c. -o [+Plural, −1]  
d. -n6 [+Plural, +1] 1
e. -U [+Human] Impersonal
f. -Ø [ ] Elsewhere
Two women cannot refer to themselves using -6ma and two men cannot refer to
themselves using -o so these suffixes should be specified as [−1], (6b, c). Each
suffix in (6c, d) is specified for two features but there is no competition between
them as they are disjoint. However, (6d) must be inserted before (6e, f) to block
248 SOUND MUTATIONS

the insertion of -U or -Ø in a node specified as first plural. In other words, even

though -U and -Ø are compatible for insertion at a node specified as first plural,
the presence of a compatible and more specified item -n6 in (6d) blocks the
insertion of these suffixes. Because no item in (6) is specified as, say, second
plural masculine the item specified only as [+Plural, −1] is inserted in that node.
The impersonal may be seen as having both values for person, number and
gender features, i.e. [±Plural, ±Feminine, ±1, ±3] (see Lumsden and Halefom
1999: 32 and the references therein for a proposed specification along these
lines). This is equivalent to saying that the impersonal affix has no person,
number and gender specification. This claim is mainly supported by the fact that
the impersonal does not exclude any person, number or gender while it does not
necessarily express a specific person, number or gender. It can be used when the
subject may be thought of as first, second or third person, singular or plural,
masculine or feminine. However, since it can only be used when the subject of
the sentence is human it should be specified as [+Human]. The unspecified
Elsewhere suffix is inserted in all the remaining cases.
One of the peculiarities of the impersonal sentence is that it does not have
an NP (be it lexical or pronominal) in the subject position. Take the following
very common sentence of the impersonal construction, which is equivalent to the
English expression good morning.
(7) w6xe-m at6r-i-m?10
well-m spent the night-(it)-past
‘Have one spent the night well?’
This sentence can be used at the beginning of a conversation and, yet, it has no
subject. So two related questions arise: (a) what does the claimed clitic Q1 stand
for in this sentence? and (b) what triggers agreement? Given the claim that Q1
affixes are instantiations of clitic doubling my analysis predicts that there should
not be a distinct Q1 affix for the impersonal because there is no subject to be
doubled. This prediction is borne out as no distinct impersonal affix is found in
(4) and (5), i.e. it has the Elsewhere affix in both cases. However, the imperson-
al cannot be used when the subject may be thought of as anything different from
human, so it needs to be specified as [+Human] when used as a subject agree-
ment, (6e). Due to this we have a distinct Q2 impersonal suffix.
Notice that in an analysis where there is no Q1 vs. Q2 distinction -xw and

10. Labialization does not occur because there is no labializable consonant. The m in w6xe-m is
epenthetic inserted to break the hiatus (to be compared with w6xe war-i-m ‘good afternoon’).
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 249

-n6 have the same status. But my analysis (8) considers -xw as a Q1 suffix and
-n6 as a Q2 suffix. The advantages of my analysis becomes evident when we
compare the two columns in (8). Given that Q1 affixes are prefixes in the
Imperfective, a Q1 suffix should not be found in this aspect. Accordingly, the Q1
suffix -xw is not found in the Imperfective while -n6 is found in both aspects as
this is the case for all Q2 suffixes.
(8) Perfective Imperfective
a. 1 k6f6t-xwG-Ø-m 6-kGft- Ø
b. 1 k6f6t-Ø-n6-m nG-kGftG-n6

In an analysis where both -xw and -n6 are members of the same set it is difficult
to account for the absence of -xw in the Imperfective. -xw could have been
invariable the way -n6 is. Similarly, the fact that -n6 remains invariable even in
cases where Q1 is clearly a prefix, cf. the Imperfective of (8b), is problematic.
But -xw and -n6 in my analysis are members of different sets. The variability of
-xw and the invariability of -n6 are derivable from the characteristic of the set to
which each affix belongs.
The other point that needs to be addressed here is that of relatedness. For
instance, the [çG] in (9a) has previously been analyzed as a single 2 
suffix. On the other hand, the -I (which is realized as palatalization in (9b)) has
also been analyzed as the 2  suffix (Leslau 1950: 14 and Polotsky
1951: 21). In these previous analyses there is no common 2  suffix. In my
analysis, however, (9a) and (9b) have the invariable -I in common which
signifies the 2  subject agreement. In addition, this -I shares the character-
istic common to all Q2 suffixes.
(9) The nonnull 2  affix as subject agreement (= Q2)
a. [[[k6f6t6 V] -x] -I] -m = [k6f6tçGm]
[[[open- 2- 2 -past
‘You ( ) have opened .’
b. [[tG- [k6ft V] Q1] -I Q2] = [tGk6fc]
[[2- [open -2 
‘You ( ) open .’
The suffix -x of (9a) is also common to all second person Perfective forms.
To sum up, the subject affixes include the Q1 prefix set in (10a) and suffix
set in (10b). (These are the affixes of (4) and (5) respectively.) Every element
in each set enters in a disjunctive relationship with an element in the other set,
forming the disjunctive set (10c). Each disjunctive pair in (10c) has the corre-
sponding meaning given in (10d). Aspect determines the member of the pair to
250 SOUND MUTATIONS

be used in a given sentence so the first member is used in [−Perf] and the second
member in [+Perf].
(10)
a. Q1 prefix set: {t-, 6-, N-, t-, y-}
b. Q1 suffix set: {-c, -xw, -x6, -Ø}
c. Q1 disjunctive set:
{(t- ∨ -c), (6- ∨ -xw), (N- ∨ -Ø), (t- ∨ -x6), (y- ∨ -Ø)}
| | | | |
d. Q1 meaning: {3 , 1, 1, 2, Elsewhere}
The subject affixes also include the Q2 set, (11a). Recall that these are all
suffixes and they are independent of Q1, except that Q1 and Q2 agree in the
morphosyntactic features. Each element in (11a) has the corresponding meaning
given in (11b).
(11)
a. Q2 set: {-I,} -6ma, -o, -n6, -U, -Ø}
| | | | | |
b. Q2 meaning: {2 ,  ,  , 1, Impersonal, Elsewhere}
The union of sets (10c) and (11a) exhaust the inventory of Chaha subject
affixes. Every verb must have one element from each set. This inventory
minimizes the elements of the set more than ever without missing generaliza-
tions. This constitutes the overall analysis of Chaha subject affixes. Some details
concerning alternating affixes will be addressed in the following sections.

8.3 Alternating prefixes

In order to account for the different realizations of subject prefixes and to give
accurate characterization of verbal tense and aspect a more refined division than
what has been known as Imperfective and Jussive is needed. Let us first examine
what the Imperfective and Jussive aspects convey in Chaha. The bare Imperfect-
ive expresses both the simple present and present continuous, and when com-
bined with the auxiliary ba(n6) ‘was’ it signifies the past continuous. When it is
followed by what is traditionally called the definite future -te it expresses the
Future Indicative (see Hetzron 1996 on the two future suffixes). So what is
labeled as bare Imperfective in the conjugation (1, 2) is in fact the Present
Indicative of the following table. On the other hand, the bare Jussive expresses
an order, where the person being ordered is different from the addressee. But
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 251

what is usually called the Jussive is in fact the Present Subjunctive of this table.
That is, when combined with the auxiliary ba(n6) the Jussive denotes the Past
Subjunctive (irrealis), and when it is followed by what is traditionally called the
indefinite future -w6 it expresses the Future Subjunctive. In this account, the
Imperfective stem is used to express the Past, Present and Future Indicative, and
the Jussive stem for the Past, Present and Future Subjunctive.11
Table 8.1. Absence of alternation in the 3SG FEM prefix
(12) Indicative Subjunctive
Past tG-k6ft ba(n6) ‘she was opening’ tG-kGft ba(n6) ‘she could have opened’
Present tG-k6ft ‘she opens/is opening’ tG-kGft ‘Let her open!’
Future tG-k6ftG-te ‘she will open’ [we know] tG-kGftG-w6 ‘she will open’ [we hope]

The 3  prefix t- is used in all the six slots above. Similarly, the 1 prefix
would be N- in all these slots. In other words, the prefix t- of the 3  and
N- of the 1 do not alternate due to tense (Past, Present and Future) and mood
(Indicative and Subjunctive). But the remaining three prefixes have at least two
alternating forms: 6-/N- in the 1, t-/Ø- in the second and yG-/y6-/Ø- in the third
persons and the impersonal. The remainder of this section will describe and
account for these alternations.

8.3.1 The 6- vs. N- alternation in the 1SG

The 1 prefix is normally 6- when it is word-initial, as in the first column of

(13). The prefix is a homorganic nasal N- if it is word-medial, as in the negative
forms shown in the third and forth columns.12 But a word-initial N- (which
surfaces as n due to a following vowel) appears also in the Present Subjunctive
nG-kGft.

11. Similar division can be made also for the Perfective, which represents both the simple past and
present perfect. When combined with the auxiliary ba(n6) ‘was’ the Perfective denotes the English
past perfect. In all cases, the Perfective denotes a completed action either in the past or present (it
does not form a future perfect).
12. That the 1 prefix is N- here is not related with the nature of the negative prefix a- since we
also have N- in affirmative forms such as tG-m-b6ra ‘while I eat’, tG-n-t’6ra ‘while I call’ and tG-]-k6ft
‘while I open’.
252 SOUND MUTATIONS

Table 8.2. Alternation in the 1SG prefix

(13) 1 as initial prefix 1 as medial prefix
Indicative Subjunctive Indicative Subjunctive
Past 6-k6ft ba(n6) 6-kGft ba(n6) b-a-]-k6ft b-a-]-k6ft
Present 6-k6ft nG-kGft a-]-k6ft a-]-kGft
Future 6-k6ftG-te 6-kGftG-w6 a-]-k6ft a-]-k6ft

In the affirmative (the first two columns) we have a six-way distinction of which
some are neutralized in the negative (the last two columns), i.e. only three
distinct phonological forms fill the six distinct semantic slots. Accordingly, a
form such as a-]-k6ft is ambiguous in three ways; it can mean Indicative Present,
Indicative Future and Subjunctive Future. The table also shows that the shape of
the stem is not what determines the prefix alternation.
The 6- vs. N- alternation is thus conditioned by the specifications of the
substantive features [Subjunctive, Present] and the position of the affix in the
word. The alternation may be captured as a readjustment rule changing 6 to a
nasal in the two contexts, shown in (14).
(14) The appearance of N in the 1
 a. [+Subjunctive, +Present] 
6- → N- /  
 b. # … ___ (i.e. word-medially) 

In this analysis the similarity between the N- derived by (14) and the 1 is a
phonological accident, i.e. the two N-’s are homophones.

8.3.2 The t- vs. Ø- alternation in the second person

The second person prefix alternates between t- and Ø- (G in tG- is epenthetic, cf.
Affirmative vs. Negative). As shown below, the prefix Ø- is used in the
Affirmative of the Subjunctive Present while t- is used elsewhere. The Subjunc-
tive Present, known as Imperative, expresses an order like the Jussive but it
differs from the Jussive in that the person being ordered is the addressee.
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 253

Table 8.3. Alternation in the second person prefix

(15) Affirmative Negative
Indicative Subjunctive Indicative Subjunctive
Past tG-k6ft ba(n6) tG-kGft ba(n6) b-a-t-k6ft b-a-t-k6ft
Present tG-k6ft Ø-kGft a-t-k6ft a-t-kGft
Future tG-k6ftG-te tG-kGftG-w6 a-t-k6ft a-t-k6ft

The Ø- prefix can be derived by a rule of t- deletion, as in (16). Given that the
3  prefix t- does not delete in this context we need to restrict application
of the rule only to the second person (this is done by adding a subscript 2 to the
input).
(16) Second person t- deletion in the Present Subjunctive (= Jussive)
 _____ 
t-2 → Ø- / #  +Subjunctive 
 +Present 

The prefix t- here parallels the English do in that it is required in the negative
imperative such as do not open! while it is absent in the affirmative imperative
open! (See Halefom 1994 for a different view on this.)

8.3.3 The yG- vs. y6- alternation

In (17), the prefixal y is followed by 6 if the verb is in the Affirmative of the

Subjunctive Present whereas y is followed by G in the other Affirmative forms.
No vowel follows y in the Negative but the sequence a-y- fuses and realizes as [e].
Table 8.4. Alternation in the elsewhere prefix
(17) Affirmative Negative
Indicative Subjunctive Indicative Subjunctive
Past yG-k6ft ba(n6) yG-kGft ba(n6) b-a-y-k6ft b-a-y-k6ft
Present yG-k6ft y6-kGft a-y-k6ft a-y-kGft
Future yG-k6ftG-te yG-kGftG-w6 a-y-k6ft a-y-k6ft

Note that y6- is used where the second person is Ø- while yG- is used where the
second person is t-. So the y6-/yG- alternation can be accounted for by postulating
a rule of 6 insertion, given in (18), which applies in the context where the second
person t- deletes. (See Leslau 1992: 286 and Rose 1995: 278 for similar observa-
tions with different analyses.)
254 SOUND MUTATIONS

(18) 6-Insertion in the Present Subjunctive (= Jussive)

 _____ 
y- → y6- / #  +Subjunctive 
 +Present 

8.3.4 The yG- vs. y6-/Ø- alternation in the impersonal

The impersonal has an optional prefix y6- in the Affirmative of the Present
Subjunctive, i.e. y6-kGf wc-i and kGf wc-i are in free variation. In all other cases, the
presence of y- is obligatory, cf. i.e. yG-k6f wc-i but not *k6f wc-i.
Table 8.5. The optionality of y6- in the impersonal Subjunctive Present13
(19) Affirmative Negative
Indicative Subjunctive Indicative Subjunctive
w w w
Past yG-k6f c-i ba(n6) yG-kGf c-i ba(n6) b-a-y-k6f c-i b-a-y-k6f wc-i
Present yG-k6f wc-i y6-kGf wc-i/kGf wc-i a-y-k6f wc-i a-y-kGf wc-i
Future yG-k6f wc-i-te yG-kGf wc-i-w6 a-y-k6f wc-i a-y-k6f wc-i

The alternation in (19) can be expressed as in (20), where the subscript I in the
input indicates that deletion applies only in the impersonal and the parentheses
indicate that deletion is optional.
(20) The allomorphs y6-/Ø- and yG- in the impersonal
 ____ 
y-I (→) Ø- / #  +Subjunctive 
 +Present 

Given the rule in (18), if y does not delete it will be followed by 6. In having Ø-
prefix, as in kGf wc-i, the impersonal is similar to the second persons. On the other
hand, the yG-/y6- alternation in (19) parallels the Elsewhere prefixes yG-/y6-.
The alternations discussed in §8.3 can be summarized as follows.
(21) Readjustments in the Present Subjunctive (= Jussive)
 a. t-2 (→) Ø-   ____ 
 b. y- (→) y6-  / #  +Subjunctive 
 c. y-I (→) Ø-   +Present 

13. The suffix -i here is the accusative marker but it is required unless the impersonal verb is the
nonfinal conjunct of a converb construction. The -i is found also with intransitive verbs, e.g. mw6c-i-
m ‘one died’.
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 255

 a. [+Subjunctive, +Present] 
d. 6- → N- /  
 b. # … ___ (i.e. word-medially) 

I conclude that these alternations are related because they are all determined by
the feature specifications [Subjunctive, Present] and whether the prefix is word-
initial or not. The rules in (21a–c) apply when the conjunctive context Present
Subjunctive and word-initial holds. The rule in (21d) applies when the disjunc-
tive context Present Subjunctive or word-medial holds.
Recall that I posited the items in (4) as the only underlying Q1 prefixes. In
this section I have derived each prefix’s allomorph by a rule. For example, the
t-/Ø- alternation is accounted for by positing t- and a rule of deletion (21a).
Similarly, the yG-/y6- alternation is accounted for by postulating an underlying y-
and the rule (21b). A similar rule optionally deletes y in the impersonal in (21c).
In the same manner, 6-/N- alternation is seen as 6 becoming N, (21d). While the
homogeneity of the contexts in (21) may favor the present analysis it is also
possible to posit each alternating form as an underlying form. Whether my
analysis or positing each of the alternating forms as underlying is a better
analysis remains an open question.

8.4 Alternating suffixes

Suffixes containing nonfloating features have two alternating forms, such as -x6/
-x in the second person, -xw/-x in the 1, -n6/-ne in the 1 and so on. This
section describes these alternations and attempts to account for them.

8.4.1 Readjustments before clitics (-xw/-x, -c(6)/-c and -n6/-ne)

Some subject suffixes have two alternating forms depending on whether there is
a following clitic (i.e. Case + object suffix) or not. For instance, the 1 is -xw
when it is not followed by a clitic whereas it is -x (hence there is delabialization)
when it is followed by a clitic, cf. (22a) vs. (22b). (This hitherto unidentified
alternation has been a source of misconceptions discussed in Appendix 7).
(22) Readjustments before a clitic: -xw/-x
a. Without a clitic
k6f6t-xwG-m ‘I have opened .’
b. With a clitic
k6f6t-xG-r-a-m ‘I have opened (it) for her.’
256 SOUND MUTATIONS

The 1 suffix is -n6 when it is not followed by a clitic whereas it is -ne (hence
there is fronting of 6 to e) when it is followed by a clitic, cf. (23a) vs. (23b).
(23) Readjustments before a clitic: -n6/-ne
a. Without a clitic
k6f6t-n6-m ‘We have opened .’
b. With a clitic
k6f6t-ne-r-a-m ‘We have opened (it) for her.’
Apart from these, the 3  suffix is -c when it is not followed by a clitic
whereas it is -c(6) (with an optional 6) when it is followed by a clitic, cf. (24a)
vs. (24b). So [−c] and [−c6] are in free variation before a clitic.
(24) Readjustments before a clitic: -c/-c(6)
a. Without a clitic
k6f6t6-cG-m ‘She has opened .’
b. With a clitic
k6f6t6-c(6)-r-a-m ‘She has opened (it) for her.’14
In my view, these readjustments have an underlying motivation related to the
choice of the Light or Heavy clitics. Each object clitic in Chaha has two
allomorphs known as Light and Heavy. For example, the clitic -ö-o ‘to their
detriment’ in (25a) is Light; the ö here is not a geminate. On the other hand, the
clitic -p-o ‘to their detriment’ in (25b) is Heavy; the p here is a simplified
underlying geminate (see §9.4 for details). Recall that Q1 suffixes are adjacent
to the stem but not to object clitics because Q2 suffixes intervene. On the other
hand, Q2 suffixes are the final elements of the subject inflexion, hence adjacent
to object clitics but not to the stem. Note also that -xU is a Q1 suffix while -n6I
is a Q2 suffix, as shown in (25).
(25) a. k6f6t-xU-Ø-ö-o-m = [k6f6txGöom]
open-1-1-detriment-3 -past
‘I have opened it to their () detriment.’

14. When both the direct and indirect objects of a verb are definite the verb agrees with either
objects — not both — depending on the speaker’s intention, e.g. y6-c’amut dengya-çta t’6ö6t’-x-r-a-m
‘I held (= babysitting) c’amut’s children for her’ or y6-c’amut dengya-çta t’6ö6t’-x-n-o-m ‘I held
c’amut’s children’. Accordingly, the parenthesized direct object it of (22b), (23b) and (24b) is only
implicit in the Chaha examples.
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 257

b. k6f6t-Ø-n6I-p-o-m = [k6f6tnepom]
open-1-1-detriment-3 -past
‘We have opened it to their () detriment.’
For a clitic to be Heavy the trigger of heaviness should always be there, i.e. a
clitic should be consistently Heavy or Light for a given subject. However, the Q1
suffix -xw could not be present in the Imperfective and Jussive — given its
variability. So it cannot license a Heavy clitic (for if it does it in the Perfective
it cannot do it in other aspects). This leads to generalization (26a). In addition,
I assume that /U/ and /I/ trigger gemination of a following consonant, (26b). But,
the /U/ of (25a) cannot be found in Nonperfective aspects, so it should not
trigger gemination for if it does, that will create inconsistency. Due to this, the
Q1 suffix -xw deletes its final vocoid before a clitic (for the clitic to be Light),
(26c). But the /I/ of (25b) is found in all aspects and Q2 suffixes should be followed
by Heavy clitics, (26a), so the /I/ triggers gemination of the following /ö/ to [p].
(26) a. Only invariable (or Q2) affixes license Heavy object clitics.
b. The final-vocoid /I, U, A/ of a suffix triggers heaviness.
c. Variable (or Q1) suffixes avoid their final-vocoids before object
clitics.
The different nature of the clitics in (25) emerges from the claim that the
preceding vocoids belong to two different sets of suffixes. Clitics are in
complementary distribution with the vocoids of Q1 suffixes whereas they force
the realization of vocoids in Q2 suffixes. This constitutes one argument to
analyze variable and invariable suffixes as different sets. In analyses where -xw
and -n6 belong to the same set there is no principled explanation for the delabial-
ization of -xw and fronting of e before clitics. However, the present analysis
attributes the contrast to a difference in their respective sets.
When followed by a clitic, -cG is in free variation with -c6, i.e. there is an
optional 6 following c. This 6 is illicit in the absence of a following clitic, cf.
*k6f6t6-c6-m, i.e. its presence is concomitant with clitics and it is optional even
in the presence of a following clitic. The insertion of 6 is a strategy used to
separate the final /I/ of the Q1 suffix [−c] (/-ttI/) so that it will not be followed
by a Heavy clitic.

8.4.2 Readjustment after the second person /-x6/ (-x6/-x, -o/-u and -6ma/-ma)

The Perfective Q1 suffix for the second person is -x6 if it is followed by the null
Q2, (27a), but it is -x if it is followed by a nonnull Q2 suffix, (27b). In addition,
the Q2 plural masculine is [−u] in the Perfective while it is [−o] in the Imperfective.
258 SOUND MUTATIONS

Similarly, the Q2 plural feminine is [−Gma] in the Perfective while it is [−6ma]

i n
the Imperfective. So we have the alternations -x6/-x in the Perfective, -u/-o in the
plural masculine and -Gma/-6ma in the plural feminine.
(27) Perfective Imperfective
a. you ( ) k6f6t-x6-Ø-m = [k6f6tx6m] tG-k6ft-Ø
b. you ( ) k6f6t-x-I-m = [k6f6tçGm] tG-k6ft-I = [tGk6fc]
you ( ) k6f6t-x-u-m tG-k6ft-o
you ( ) k6f6t-x-Gma-m tG-k6ft-6ma
I assume that the second person is /-x6/, the plural masculine is /-o/ and the
plural feminine is /-6ma/. Note that /-x6/ is followed by a vowel-initial Q2 in all
instances of (27b). My analysis will be that the vowel /6/ of /-x6/ deletes due to
vowel hiatus.
(28) 6-Deletion: 6 → Ø / ____ + V (= vowel)
The rule of 6-Deletion in (28) is further justified by the fact that no 6 is found
before a vowel. The only thing to note about 6-Deletion is that it applies even
before the epenthetic [G], e.g. b6-Gsat → bGsat (not *b6sat) ‘on fire’.
Note further that the initial vowels of the Q2 plural suffixes (-o and -6ma)
are mid in the Imperfective but high in the Perfective. In other words, these
vowels raise when preceded by the phonetically realized Q1 suffix -x yielding -x-
u and -x-Gma. This can be capture by a Raising rule (29).
(29) V-Raising: V → [+high] / nonnull Q1 + ____
The derivation of [−xGma] requires 6-Deletion and V-Raising without intrinsic
ordering in the application of the rules. However, it should be noted that the
raised /6/ (i.e. [G]) deletes if it is preceded by an open syllable, as in f6ta-x-ma-m
‘you ( ) have untied ’ (to be compared with k6f6t-x-Gma-m, from (27b)).

8.5 Conclusion

This chapter develops an idea that the Perfective suffixes of Chaha (and Semitic
by extension) should be analyzed as belonging to two different sets. It shows
that such an analysis offers a natural account for the otherwise unexplained
irregularities in subject affixes. Its basic hypothesis is that whether an affix is
variable or invariable should not be an idiosyncratic character of each affix.
Rather, variability is the characteristic common to a position occupied by that
 SUBJECT AFFIXES 259

affix, so the variability of -xw and the invariability of -n6 is determined by their
membership to the respective sets Q1 and Q2. In this account, -xw is variable
because it is Q1 (whose linear order and phonological content is aspect depen-
dent) while -n6 is invariable because it is Q2 (whose linear order and phonologi-
cal content is independent of aspect). Moreover, given that the Q1 affixes
express not only the phi features of the subject but also aspect it is mandatory
that they should be specified as subject plus aspect whereas such specification
cannot be made for Q2 suffixes. It then follows that the Q1 vs. Q2 distinction
cannot be dispensed with. The proposed dichotomy not only explains the alter-
nations of subject affixes, it also plays a role in accounting for the Light-Heavy
allomorphy of object clitics. We are now in a position to offer the criteria sum-
marized in Table 8.6, which allows us to predict whether a suffix is Q1 or Q2.
Table 8.6. Criteria for distinguishing Q1 from Q2
(30) Q1 affixes Q2 suffixes
a. Are variable (prefix or suffix, e.g. tG- Are invariable (suffix only, e.g. -6ma)
vs. -c)
b. Are followed by Light clitics (e.g. by Are followed by Heavy clitics (e.g. by
-ö-a) -p-a)
c. Avoid their vocoid before a clitic (e.g. Utilize their vocoid before a clitic (e.g.
-x-ö-a and not *xw-ö-a) -ne-p-a and not *-n6-p-a)

The second and third criteria will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. It
will be shown that the Q1 vs. Q2 distinction is also needed to explain why some
subject suffixes block 3  object labialization whereas others do not. We
will see that the Q2 suffixes, and only them, introduce a Dorsal node in a
following object clitic. The final chapter will attempt to explain this asymmetry.
 C 9

Object Clitics

9.1 Introduction

In this chapter I investigate object clitics and their interaction with subject
suffixes. (See, among others, Polotsky 1938, Goldenberg 1968, and Hetzron
1968 on this issue.) In §9.2 I distinguish Case-marking suffixes from object
pronouns. I propose that all Chaha object clitics consist of a Case marker (the
first suffix of each pair in Table 9.1) and a following object pronoun (the second
suffix). I identify three distinct Case markers and account for their phonetic
absence in some forms. The main purpose of this chapter will be to account for
the alternations found in this table. The suffixes are extracted from the conjuga-
tion of the verb k6f6t ‘has opened’ given in Appendix 9.
In §9.3 I present some arguments showing that each pair of suffixes in the
table is a clitic. In §9.4 I discuss the role of subject suffixes on the clitic
alternations and show how this support the claim in §7.2.2 that floating features
leave their articulators and organizing nodes behind. In §9.5 I give some argu-
ments based on clitic alternations supporting the proposal that variable subject
suffixes (labeled Q1 in Chapter 8) hold a syntactic position independent from the
one held by invariable suffixes (labeled Q2), hence Q1 is not adjacent to clitics
(because Q2 intervenes). I will argue that due to the absence of adjacency,
phonetically realized Q1 suffixes cannot make a following clitic Heavy.
As noted in note 14 of chapter 8, a given verb can take only one type of
object (i.e. one of the pairs of Table 9.1) at a time. Accordingly, when the verb
agrees with the indirect object, as in (2a, b) below, the direct object is unmarked
so it can be singular or plural and masculine or feminine. (Note also that the
epenthetic [G] is omitted from the Table.)
262 SOUND MUTATIONS

Table 9.1. Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha1

(1)   
object Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy
me -Ø-e -Ø-n -ö-i -p-i -n-i -n-i
us -Ø-nd6 -Ø-nd6 -ö-nd6 -p-nd6 -Ø-nd6 -Ø-nd62
you ( ) (-n-a)x63 -Ø-k6 -ö-x6 -ö-k6 -n-x6 -n-k6
you ( ) (-n-a)ç -Ø-ky -ö-ç -ö-ky -n-ç -n-ky
you ( ) (-n-a)xu -Ø-ku -ö-xu -ö-ku -n-xu -n-ku
you ( ) (-n-a)xma -Ø-kma -ö-xma -ö-kma -n-xma -n-kma
him/it -n-U -y-U -ö-6U -p-6U -r-6U -r-6U
her -n-a -y-a -ö-a -p-a -r-a -r-a
them () -n-o -y-o -ö-o -p-o -r-o -r-o
them () -n-6ma -y-6ma -ö-6ma -p-6ma -r-6ma -r-6ma

9.2 Distinguishing Case from pronoun

9.2.1 The three sets of Case markers

As stated in Polotsky (1938), Leslau (1950), Goldenberg (1968), Hetzron (1971)

and Ford (1991), some object pronouns are separated from the inflected verb by
a Case marker. This is illustrated in (2), where the 3  object -o is
separated from the verb stem r6x (from the root –rAx) by [−r] (2a) or [−ö] (2b).
(2) a. yG-r6x-r-o ‘He sends () for them ().’
b. yG-r6x-ö-o ‘He sends () to their () detriment.’
c. yG-r6x-n-o ‘He sends them ().’
subject + verb + Case + object pronoun
The [−r] in (2a) expresses doing the action denoted by the verb for (the benefit
of) the object pronoun. Hence, it is called benefactive Case marker (hereafter
). On the other hand, [−ö] in (2b) conveys the idea of doing the action

1. Every [p] in the table is in free variation with [k]. /U/ (i.e. its feature [round]) moves leftward and
labializes the nearest preceding target. But labialization cannot affect a segment preceding the Case
suffix in the Heavy alternant.
2. The  -nd6 does not vary. It triggers deletion of a preceding  /-r/. Its nd cluster is never
broken up by an epenthetic vowel.
3. See §9.4.6 concerning the advent of (-n-a). In its absence, there is the  -Ø.
 OBJECT CLITICS 263

expressed by the verb to the detriment of the object pronoun or using the object
as an instrument to do the action. Hence, it is called malefactive/instrumental
Case marker (hereafter ). The combination of a Case marker and an object
pronoun which I call “clitic” has received different denominations by different
authors: “prepositions” by Leslau (1950: 19), “mediate suffixes” by Polotsky
(1951: 29) and Goldenberg (1968: 81), “n- and b-suffixes” by Hetzron (1977: 60)
and “benefactive and adverse complement suffixes” by Ford (1991: 284–5).
There is also a third type of object pronoun: -n-o, exemplified in (2c). This
is known as the accusative/dative object pronoun.4 Polotsky (1938: 160), Hetzron
(1969: 108) and Goldenberg (1968: 83) analyze the accusative/dative object
pronoun as attaching to the inflected verb without any intermediate suffix
between the two. Their claim that the accusative/dative object pronouns are
adjacent to the inflected verb originates from the absence of an intermediate
phonetic suffix before the consonant-initial second person pronouns. This is
exemplified in (3c), where the object pronoun -x6 ‘you ( )’ attaches
directly to the inflected verb. (Note that [n] in (3a) is a nasalized /r/, see §9.4.8).
(3) a. yG-r6xG-n-x6 → [yGr6xGnx6] ‘He sends () for you ( ).’
b. yG-r6xG-ö-x6 → [yGr6xGöx6] ‘He sends () to your ( ) ’
c. yG-r6x-?-x6 → [yGr6xx6] ‘He sends you ( ).’

If we assume that the stem r6x and the pronoun -o in yG-r6x-n-o ‘he sends them
()’ in (2c) are underlyingly adjacent, the presence of [n] remains unex-
plained. On the other hand, if we assume an intermediate Case suffix between
the stem r6x and the pronoun -x6 in (3c), we must account for the absence in the
phonetic form of the proposed intermediate suffix. I will argue in the paragraphs
to follow that -x6 ‘you ( )’ in (3c) is exactly like -n-x6 ‘for you (
)’ and -ö-x6 ‘for your ( ) detriment’ in that it is preceded by a Case
marker. The phonological content of the Case marker in (3c) is an open question
for now, hence the question mark.

4. The indirect object of verbs such as hand and receive ends like (2c), in which case the object is
ambiguous (accusative or dative), e.g. y-a-k’y6pGn-n-o ‘he hands () to them ()’ (from
-k’y6pGr-) or ‘he hands them () (to someone, e.g. the enemy)’ and yG-t-k’y6p6n-n-o ‘he receives
() from them’ or ‘he receives them’ (where the nouns in parentheses are implicit). So -n-o is
accusative/dative.
264 SOUND MUTATIONS

9.2.2 [n] as part of the third person object pronouns

For all the aforementioned authors the [n] in yG-r6x-n-o ‘he sends them ()’,
(2c), is part of the third person object pronoun. In other words, while these
authors analyze the [r] and the [ö] of -r-o and -ö-o in (2) as intermediate
suffixes, they consider the [n] of [no] as part of the 3  object pronoun,
i.e. -no, not -n-o. Such analyses are problematic for the simple reason that [n]
does not occur in -r-o and -ö-o despite the fact that these forms display the 3
 pronoun. The presence of [n] only in -no makes it impossible to give a
single representation for the 3  pronoun in the three sets of (2). I
therefore propose that the [−n] in -n-o is not part of the object pronoun. It is a
Case marker parallel to [−r] in -r-o and [−ö] in -ö-o.
According to the previous analyses, -r-o and -ö-o are divisible. This implies
that the two forms are related since both have the suffix -o in common. Yet, -no
is indivisible and has no suffix in common with -r-o and -ö-o, entailing that -no
is phonologically unrelated with them. By contrast, in my proposal, [−r], [−ö]
and [−n] in (2) have the same status. They are all Case suffixes. In addition, the
three sets -r-o, -ö-o and -n-o include four suffixes (-r, -ö, -n and -o) with only
-o being common to the three sets. Hence, the problem of phonological related-
ness does not arise in my analysis. The sets -r-o, -ö-o and -n-o exemplify what
I call clitics.

9.2.3 An n-insertion analysis

The assumption that accusative object pronouns are adjacent to the verb cannot
explain the presence of [n] before the second person pronouns in forms such as (4c).
(As has been done in the previous chapters, a final -m of the Perfective is omitted.)
(4) a. nax6-n-x6 ‘He has sent () for you ( ).’
b. nax6-ö-x6 ‘He has sent () to your ( ) ’
c. nax6-n-ax6, *nax6-ax6 ‘He has sent you ( ).’
An alternative way to solve this inconsistency would be to introduce the [n] in
(4c) by some insertion rule. In fact, Hetzron (1969: 108) suggests that the [n] in
(4c) is a secondary development created by the analogy of the third person such
as yG-r6x-n-o ‘he sends them ()’. However, I presented arguments in §9.2.2
that [n] in yG-r6x-n-o is better analyzed as a Case marker than as third person.
So, [n] in (4c) is expected because all vocoid-initial object pronouns are preceded
by the accusative/dative marker [−n], as in (2c) and (4c). Rather, I contend that
what needs to be explained is the absence of [n] in (3c) and not its presence in (4c).
 OBJECT CLITICS 265

9.2.4 -Ø as an accusative/dative suffix

Instead of assuming the [n] to be part of the third person object pronouns in
examples such as yG-r6x-no (my yG-r6x-n-o) ‘he sends them ()’ in (2c) or
inserting an [n] by rule in nax6-n-ax6 ‘he has sent you ( )’ in (4c), I
propose that [−n] in (2c) and (4c) is an accusative/dative Case marker (hereafter
). I also assume that the  is present also in yG-r6x-Ø-x6 ‘he sends you (
)’ in (3c) but here the suffix is -Ø. The -Ø is used before consonants while
[−n] is used before vocoids. The  [−n] also alternates with [−y] but this will
be discussed in §9.4.4.
The three sets of pronouns in the accusative, i.e. (2c), (3c) and (4c),
repeated in (5), are now unified in that all are preceded by the  suffix but
the phonological content of the suffix varies depending on what follows.
(5) a. yG-r6x-n-o ‘He sends them ()’. (from (2c))
b. nax6-n-ax6 ‘He has sent you ( )’. (from (4c))
c. yG-r6x-Ø-x6 ‘He sends you ( )’. (from (3c))
The third person suffixes such as -o, (5a), and the second person semi-depen-
dent5 pronouns such as -ax6, (5b), are vocoid-initial so they are preceded by the
 [−n]. The second person dependent pronouns such as -x6, (5c), are conso-
nant-initial so they are preceded by the  -Ø.
My analysis unifies not only the accusative object pronouns given in (5) but
also the three sets of clitics exemplified in (3), repeated as (6), in that each of
them has a Case marker (/-r/, /-ö/ or -Ø) followed by an object pronoun.
(6) a. yG-r6xG-n-x6 → [yGr6xGnx6] ‘He sends () for you ( ).’
b. yG-r6xG-ö-x6 → [yGr6xGöx6] ‘He sends () to your ’
c. yG-r6x-Ø-x6 → [yGr6xx6] ‘He sends you ( ).’
I therefore agree with Hetzron (1977: 60) and all the aforementioned authors that
there are three sets of Case markers preceding the object pronouns. I also agree
with them that the accusative object pronoun -x6 in yG-r6x-x6 ‘he sends you (
)’ in (5c) is not preceded by a phonetically realized suffix. However, I
differ from them in analyzing the [n] in examples such as yG-r6x-n-o ‘he sends
them ()’ as a Case marker. I do not analyze it as part of the object pronoun.

5. I call the second person pronominal suffixes such as -ax6, (5b), semi-dependent because they also
are the independent pronouns, cf. ax6 ‘you ( )’, aç ‘you ( )’, axu ‘you ( )’, axma
‘you ( )’. See §9.4.6 concerning the use of these semi-dependent pronouns as pronominal
suffixes.
266 SOUND MUTATIONS

I also postulate a zero  suffix in (6c). Accordingly, there is no  suffix
for them whereas, for me, -Ø and -n are just two different realizations of 
used respectively before consonant-initial and vowel-initial object pronouns.

9.3 The clitic nature of object suffixes

Object agreements, as in the French past participle, do not require that the object
be definite, as the italicized indefinite nouns of (7a, b) trigger object agreement.
(7) a. une personne qu’on n’a jamais comprise
a person that one never understood
b. des livres que j’ai lus
books that I read
The antecedents of the agreement markers e in (7a) and s in (7b) are not definite.
However, object clitics in French require that the object be definite in order to
agree with it in number and gender. When the object is indefinite the clitic is en
regardless of the number and gender contrasts of the object, as in (8a). But
French object clitics contrast for number and gender if they are definite, as in (8b).
(8) a. j’en ai acheté une vs. j’en ai acheté cinq
I (of it) bought one vs. I (of them) bought five
‘I bought one’ vs. ‘I bought five’
b. je l’ai achetée vs. je les ai achetés
I it bought vs. I them bought
‘I bought it’ vs. ‘I bought them’
In Chaha, if the direct object is indefinite there can be no object suffix, as in
(9a) vs. (9b). It follows that all direct object suffixes are definite.6
(9) a. Gxa s6c’6-xwG-m
water drink-1-past
‘I have drunk some water.’

6. This observation holds also for other Ethiopian Semitic languages. For instance, in Amharic, the
3  object suffix -t is prohibited if the object is indefinite, e.g. wGha t’6t’t’a-hu ‘I have drunk
some water’ vs. *wGha t’6t’t’a-hu-t. However, there are some implicitly definite direct objects that do
not require the definite article to convey a definite interpretation and trigger object agreement. For
example, in tGk6 as6r6-c-nG-m (baby carry on back-she-it-past) ‘she carried the baby on her back’, the
object tGk6 is definite but only implicitly — there is normally one baby in a household.
 OBJECT CLITICS 267

b. *Gxa s6c’6-x-n-U-m
water drink-1--3 -past
c. Gxa xwGta s6c’6-x-n-U-m (= [s6c’6xwnGm])7
water the ( ) drink-1--3 -past
‘I have drunk the water.’
Definiteness is required by clitics but not by objects agreements. This categorizes
the object suffixes of Chaha (and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages) with
the French object clitics and not with the French past participle object agreements.
Object suffixes in Ethiopian Semitic languages are preceded by Case mar-
kers. For instance, as we have seen in §9.2, Chaha has three sets of Case mar-
kers preceding the object pronouns. This fact parallels the accusative and dative
contrasts that we see in French object clitics such as le and lui. The French clitic
le is accusative the way the Chaha clitic -ö-a is benefactive and so on.
Finally, French past participle agreement holds between a verb and an accu-
sative object, as in (10a), so a dative object cannot agree with the verb, cf. (10b).
(10) a. la pomme que je vous ai donnée
the apple that I you gave
‘The apple that I gave you’
b. *la pomme que je vous ai donnés
But object suffixes of Ethiopian Semitic languages are not limited to accusative
objects. As can be seen from the Amharic example in (11a), in the presence of
both accusative and dative objects, the suffix on the verb is the dative and not
the accusative, cf. (11b).
(11) a. l-anci y6-s6t’t’6-xu-w m6s’haf-occ
for-you ( ) that-give-1-you ( ) books ( )
‘the books that I gave you ( )’
b. *l-anci y6-s6t’t’6-xu-acc6w m6s’haf-occ
for-you ( ) that-give-1-them ( )
books ( )
The dative object -w in (11a) is different from French object agreement (since French
has no agreement with dative objects), but it is similar to French dative clitics.
Based on these observations and the arguments given in Mullen
(1986: 327–32), I assume that the combination of Case and pronoun suffixes is

7. See §7.8, Appendix 7, and §9.4.7 for discussions on the phonetic realization of the 3 
suffix /-U/, and §8.2 for analyzing the 1 subject in (9c) as /-x/ — not /-xU/.
268 SOUND MUTATIONS

a clitic, and not an object agreement marker. The clitics consist of an object
pronoun preceded by a Case marker. In this account, Case markers are prefixed
to the pronoun inside the clitic whereas the clitic is suffixed to the verbal
complex [[[verb] Q1] Q2] (see Chapter 8 on Q1 and Q2). The clitic, i.e. the
complex [Case + pronoun], is right-adjoined to this complex, a head which copies
the morphosyntactic feature values of its subject through -Head agreement.
I therefore assume (12) to be the basic structure of a sentence in Chaha where T
= tense, V = verb, Q1 & Q2 = subject agreement.
(12) TP

Spec T

VP T
-m
Lexical V
subjecti
Lexical [[[V] Q1] Q2]i
objectj
[[[V] Q1] Q2]i clitic

Case object pronounj

k6f6t -xG -ma -r -a
k6f6t -xG -ma -r -a -m
open -2 -  -for -3  -past
‘You ( ) have opened (it) for her.’
The verb in (12) has the aspectual specification [+Perfective], which is expressed
by the [6] found between the last two root consonants (f and t). This specification
conditions the phonological content and linear order of Q1 (which in this case is
a suffix /-x/). Q2 is insensitive to the aspect of the verb. Now we will discuss
the phonological alternations found in the clitics.

9.4 Light-Heavy Alternation (LHA) of clitics as subject-clitic interaction

Each clitic in Chaha has Light/Heavy alternants, e.g. -ö-a/-p-a ‘to her detriment’,
known as Light-Heavy Alternation (hereafter ). The  manifests itself
either on the Case markers as in -ö-a/-p-a or the pronouns, e.g. -ö-x6/-ö-k6 ‘to
your (sg.m) detriment’ — but not both. The Light and Heavy alternants have no
 OBJECT CLITICS 269

semantic difference. Table 9.2 summarizes where the Light and Heavy alternants
are found.
Table 9.2. Q2 subject suffixes and the following clitic8
(13) Nature of Q2 subject suffixes Nature of the
following clitic
a. Null Q2 (= -Ø)
Light
1, 2 , 3 , 3 
b. Nonnull (phonetically realized) Q2
1 /-n6I/
2  /-I/
Heavy
impersonal /-U/
  /-6öU/
  /-6m6A/

As shown in Table 9.1, the null-Q2 suffixes are followed by Light clitics. On the
other hand, all nonnull-Q2 suffixes in (13b)) end with one of the vocoids
/I, U, A/ and the clitics that follow them are Heavy. The content of Q2 suffixes
is the only conditioning factor for . Aspect has no role in conditioning .
If, for instance, the 1 subject is followed by Heavy clitics in the Perfective it
will also be followed by Heavy clitics in the Imperfective and Jussive.

9.4.1 A proposal for the LHA

I propose that both Light and Heavy clitics derive from a unique underlying form
and that what distinguishes them is the fact that the Heavy ones are preceded by
the final vocoids /I, U, A/ of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes. These vocoids have the
respective salient terminal features [−back], [high] and [low], which are dominat-
ed by their articulator node Dorsal. (As we saw in Chapter 7, /U/ also has
[round] under Labial but this is not relevant here.) The vocoids have also a
skeletal slot X. In addition, as proposed in §7.2.2, [−back] and [high] dissociate
from Dorsal (due to decomposition) and they float to dock on a preceding target,
leaving their Dorsal X behind. I also assume that [a] in [6ma] derives from /6A/
and that /A/ also has a Dorsal X dominating [low]. Here, too, [low] abandons its
Dorsal and docks on the preceding /6/, changing it to [a]. Thus, leaving the
[round] Labial of /U/ aside, the final vocoids /I, U, A/ of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes

8. Phonetically, /-I/ palatalizes and /-U/ labializes and palatalizes a preceding target (§7.2.2). /-n6I/
surfaces as [−n6] or [−ne], /-6öU/ as [−o] or [−u], and /-6m6A/ as [−6ma] or [−ma] (see §8.4).
270 SOUND MUTATIONS

have the representations shown in (14), where the dissociated terminal features
will dock on their preceding targets. (See Chapter 6 for a claim that both Lingual
and Peripheral dominate Dorsal.)
(14) a. /I/ b. /U/ c. /A/
X X X
| | |
Root Root Root
| | |
Place Place Place
| | |
Lingual/Peripheral Lingual/Peripheral Lingual/Peripheral
| | |
Dorsal Dorsal Dorsal
[−back] [high] [low]
My claim is that the common Dorsal X slot of these vocoids is what triggers
gemination in Heavy clitics. The Dorsal articulator also has the characteristics of
blocking a floating feature [round] and velarizing /ö/ to [k]. Thus, blocking and
velarization are triggered by the Dorsal and gemination by its X slot. The Dorsal
X also triggers the [−n] vs. [−y] alternation of the . The following sections
present all identifiable ’s and show how the alternations support the proposal.

9.4.2 LHA as simplex vs. geminate alternation

When a pronominal suffix is velar-initial, as are the final suffixes in (15), the
velar exhibits , i.e. the velar is a spirant [x] (or its palatalized form [ç]) in
(15a) whereas it is a stop [k] (or [ky]) in (15b). While all the examples below are
malefactive this generalization holds also for the accusative, e.g. yG-r6x-x6/yG-r6x-
o-k6 ‘he/they send(s) you ( )’, and benefactive, e.g. yG-r6xG-n-x6/yG-r6x-o-
n-k6 ‘he/they send(s) () for you ( )’. (The ↑↑ in the last Heavy
example indicates the original site of /U/, i.e. impersonal labialization and
palatalization, as in yG-k6f wcGökGma ‘one opens () to your ( ) detriment’.)
(15)  when the object is velar-initial
a. Light b. Heavy
6-r6xG-Ø-ö-xu nG-r6x-ne-ö-ku
‘I/We send () to your ( ) ’
yG-r6xG-Ø-ö-x6 yG-r6x-o-ö-k6
‘He/They () send(s) to your ( ) ’
 OBJECT CLITICS 271

tG-r6xG-Ø-ö-ç yG-r6x-6ma-ö-ky
‘she/they () send(s) () to your ( ) ’
yG-r6xG-Ø-ö-xGma yG-r6xwG-↑↑-ö-kGma
‘He/One sends () to your ( ) ’
As discussed in Chapter 3, when [x] alternates with [k], [k] is the geminated and
simplified form of /x/, e.g. y6-sx6r ‘let him get drunk!’ vs. s6k6r6-m ‘he has got
drunk’. Accordingly,  is a simplex vs. geminate consonant alternation. The
clitic which contains the underlying spirant is called Light while the one which
contains the derived stop is called Heavy by Polotsky (1951: 29) and his
successors. Notice that the Light clitics in (15a) are preceded by the null-Q2
suffix whereas the Heavy clitics in (15b) are preceded by the final vocoids
/I, U, A/ of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes.
The Labial of the  /-ö/ and the following /x/ are each linked to their
own X slot in the Light allomorph (15a). There is no other slot for any of them
to be doubly linked, so the underlying /ö/ and /x/ remain unchanged. This results
in the Light clitic and does not require an explanation, i.e. the Light clitic
corresponds to the underlying form of the clitic. What should be explained is the
[k] in the Heavy clitics of (15b).
Previous analyses, as well as mine, accept that the final vocoids of the
subject suffixes in (15b) are responsible for the geminate (/xx/ → [k]). But
notice that the vocoids and [k] in (15b) are not adjacent ([ö] intervenes). If we
accept that the vocoids trigger gemination it is the adjacent /ö/, and not the
distant /x/, which is expected to geminate. But this expectation is not met
because it is impossible to geminate the /ö/ and to leave the /x/ ungeminated, cf.
nG-r6x-ne-ö-ku, from (15b), vs. *nG-r6x-ne-p-xu. So the first problem that needs
to be explained is the mismatch between the trigger and target of gemination in
(15b) unless, of course, we want to abandon the generalization that the final
vocoids of the subject suffixes, given in (14), trigger gemination.
That these vocoids are the trigger of gemination is an unavoidable
generalization, I believe. So the mismatch has to be accounted for. Notice that
the vocoids and velar-initial object suffixes have the common articulator Dorsal,
which flanks the Labial articulator of the  suffix, as shown in (16a). My
suggestion will be that the two Dorsal nodes (and what dominates them) of (16a)
fuse, presumably due to . Given this fusion the Labial of  must either
precede or follow the fused node. Accordingly, the Dorsal-Labial-Dorsal
sequence of (16a) changes to the Labial-Dorsal sequence of (16b). (I assume a
feature geometry in which Dorsal is dominated by both Lingual and Peripheral
but Lingual is omitted for simplicity as it is irrelevant to the discussion.)
272 SOUND MUTATIONS

(16) Dorsal Fusion

a. /I, U, A/ +  /-ö/ + /x/ b. Dorsals fused
X X X → X X X

Root Root Root Root Root

Place Place Place Place Place

Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral

Labial Labial

Dorsal Dorsal Dorsal

[+back] [+back]
The Root of the fused Dorsals is linked to the X slot of a vocoid and of /x/,
which gives rise to gemination, as in (16b). It eventually simplifies, i.e. /xx/ →
[k]. The omitted terminal features of the final vocoids /I, U, A/ are autonomous
and they dock on a preceding target (see Chapter 7). This results, for instance,
in the vowels [e, o, a] or complex consonant [xw] of (15b).
Dorsal Fusion, (16), applies also when a Case suffix is found between the
first person singular Q1-suffix /x/ and x-initial object suffixes, (17).
(17) Dorsal Fusion between x-final Q1 and x-initial object
k6f6t-x-ö-x6 → k6f6t-ö-x-x6 → k6f6tGök6
‘I’ve opened to your ( ) ’
k6f6t-x-r-x6 → k6f6t-r-x-x6 → k6f6tGnk6
‘I have opened for you ( ).’
stem-1-Case-object → stem-Case-1-object
In (15b) and (17), the Dorsal which precedes the consonant of the Case suffixes
in UR fuses with the initial /x/ of the second person object pronouns and the
fusion results in gemination. But object pronouns are not the only targets of .
Case markers can also be affected by . Whether the Case or pronominal
suffix is a target of  depends on the nature of the first segment of the
pronominal suffix. When the pronominal suffix is not velar-initial, as in (18),
the Case suffix displays . The clitic /-ö-a/ ‘to her detriment’ surfaces as -ö-a
in (18a), so it is Light, but it surfaces as -p-a in (18b), so it is Heavy. (↑ indi-
cates the original site of /-I/, i.e. 2  palatalization.)
 OBJECT CLITICS 273

(18)  as [ö] vs. [p] in the malefactive

a. Light  b. Heavy 
6-r6x-Ø-ö-a nG-r6x-ne-p-a
‘I/We send () to her detriment.’
tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a tG-r6ç-↑-p-a
‘You ( /) send to her ’
tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a yG-r6x-6ma-p-a
‘She/They send(s) () to her .’
yG-r6x-Ø-ö-a yG-r6x-o-p-a
‘He/They send(s) to her detriment.’
tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a yG-r6xw-↑↑-p-a
‘She/One sends () to her detriment.’
The -ö of (18a) is an underlying form while the -p of (18b) is a derived form.
Recall that Chaha [p] is always a devoiced and simplified /öö/ (see §1.2.3).
Again, the difference between Light and Heavy clitics lies in the presence
only in the latter of the Dorsal X of the final vocoids. The individual constituents
of the [p] found in the Heavy clitic -p-a of (18b) are given in (19a). Assuming
that vowel-initial object suffixes differ from x-initial ones in not having Dorsal,
the Dorsal X of (19a) is not followed by another Dorsal. In this case, the
Peripheral nodes of the vocoids and  fuse, with the fused node dominating
Dorsal/Labial, as in (19b).
(19) Peripheral Fusion
a. /I, U, A/ +  /-ö/ b. Peripherals fused
X + X → X + X

Root Root Root

Place Place Place

Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral

Dorsal Labial Dorsal/Labial

The resulting fused Root node links to the X slots of both the vocoid and ,
which gives rise to gemination (i.e. [p], as one manifestation of a Heavy clitic).
My analysis predicts that Dorsal/Labial in (19b) will be a contour segment [kp]
or [pk]. But it is not. The reason, and what happens instead, will be discussed
next.
274 SOUND MUTATIONS

9.4.3 LHA as velarization

Besides the simple vs. geminate alternation, the [p] of (18b), reproduced in (20a),
can be replaced by [k], (20b), without incurring any change in meaning, i.e. the
[p] and the [k] in (20) are in free variation. See Hetzron (1977: 68) for similar
observations. But [p] and [k] are not free variants in Chaha, as evidenced by
minimal pairs such as s6p6r ‘has broken’ vs. s6k6r ‘has got drunk’, and a
multitude of others. In other words, a geminated /ö/ does not become [k] in other
contexts. It follows that the [k] in (20b) is a velarized [p].
(20) Velarization in Heavy clitics (free variation)
a. Labial b. Dorsal
nG-r6x-ne-p-a nG-r6x-ne-k-a
‘We send () to her detriment.’
tG-r6ç-↑-p-a tG-r6ç-↑-k-a
‘You ( ) send () to her .’
yG-r6x-6ma-p-a yG-r6x-6ma-k-a
‘They () send () to her .’
yG-r6x-o-p-a yG-r6x-o-k-a
‘They () send () to her .’
yG-r6xw-↑↑-p-a yG-r6xw-↑↑-k-a
‘One sends () to her .’
The labial-dorsal free variation shown in (20) is a characteristic of Heavy clitics
since such free variation is impossible in the Light clitics of (21). While the [p]
in (20) alternates freely with [k], the [ö] in (21) does not alternate with [>].
(21) Absence of velarization in Light clitics (no free variation)
a. Labial b. Dorsal
6-r6x-Ø-ö-a *6-r6x-Ø->-a
‘I send () to her detriment.’
tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a *tG-r6x-Ø->-a
‘You ( ) send () to her ’
tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a *tG-r6x-Ø->-a
‘She sends () to her detriment.’
yG-r6x-Ø-ö-a *yG-r6x-Ø->-a
‘He sends () to her detriment.’
(21a, b) shows that the  is always labial, never dorsal. A comparison
between (20b) and (21b) indicates that velarization characterizes only Heavy
clitics.
 OBJECT CLITICS 275

The trigger of gemination (i.e. the Dorsal X of the final vocoids of the
subject suffixes) is also the trigger of velarization. It is proposed in (19) above
that the Peripheral nodes of the vocoids and  fuse, dominating Dorsal/Labial.
The fusion is expected to yield a labio-dorsal segment [kp] or [pk]. However,
Chaha does not allow contour segments in which both members are obstruents,
such as [kp]. Because [kp] is not a well-formed segment, either [k] or [p] or both
[k] and [p] has to be derived from Dorsal/Labial. Chaha adopts the last option.
Accordingly, instead of [kp] we find both [p] (20a) and [k] (20b), i.e. the two
sounds are in free variation. This gives a natural explanation for the otherwise
unexpected free variation between [p] and [k] in the Heavy .
As to the precise formal mechanism which causes free variation, I propose
that it results from suppression of one of the articulators. The suppression is, of
course, triggered by the impossibility of forming [kp]. When the Dorsal of the
final vocoids is suppressed, as in (22a), we obtain the labial [p] of (20a). On the
other hand, when the Labial of /ö/ is suppressed, as in (22b), we get the dorsal
[k] of (20b). So velarization is the suppression of Labial. Because the Root
nodes are doubly linked in both we obtain the simplified geminate [p] in (20a)
and [k] in (20b).
(22) Dorsal or Labial suppression
a. Dorsal suppression b. Labial suppression
X + X X + X X + X X + X

Root Root Root Root

Place Place Place Place

Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral

Dorsal/Labial Labial Dorsal/Labial Dorsal

Ø Ø
In §9.4.1 I proposed that the final vocoids of nonnull-Q2 suffixes of the subject
include a Dorsal X, which fuses with a following Dorsal and triggers gemination
(§9.4.2) and velarization (§9.4.3) in Heavy clitics. We will now see the role of
the Dorsal X on the [−n] vs. [−y] alternation of the .
276 SOUND MUTATIONS

9.4.4 LHA as [ n] vs. [ y] alternation

When the object pronoun is vocoid-initial, the Light  suffix is [n] while the
Heavy one is [y], as shown in (23a, b). (The reader will notice that, in my
analysis, neither [n] of (23a) nor [y] of (23b) are part of the 3  object,
which is [a]. [n] and [y] are different realizations of the .)
(23)  as [n] vs. [y] in the accusative
a. Light  b. Heavy 9
6-r6x-Ø-n-a nG-r6x-n6-y-a10
‘I/We send her.’
tG-r6x-Ø-n-a tG-r6ç-↑-y-a
‘You ( /) send her.’
tG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6x-6ma-y-a
‘She/They () send(s) her.’
yG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6x-o-(y)y-a
‘He/They () send(s) her.’
yG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6xw-↑↑-y-a
‘He/One sends her.’
An attempt to derive [n] and [y] of (23) from a single phoneme is problematic
because if we assume /n/ to be the underlying form for both sounds, this will be
the only context where /n/ palatalizes and denasalizes to yield [y]. Similarly, if
we assume /y/ to be underlying, this will also be the only context where /y/
depalatalizes and nasalizes to yield [n]. Based on these observations we can
conclude that [n] and [y] do not derive from a single phoneme.
The distribution of [n] and [y] in (23) can straightforwardly be accounted
for if we assume that the UR of  is /-rrI/. In this view, the derivation of the
Light  will be as in (24). Recall that the UR of all clitics is the one which
corresponds to the Light clitic. In addition, I have independently claimed in
§7.2.2 that the terminal feature [−back] of /I/ dissociates from its articulator
Dorsal and docks on a preceding target. In a similar fashion, [−back] of /I/
abandons its Dorsal and docks on the preceding /rr/, as in (24). The abandoned
Dorsal remains unpronounced, as usual.

9. The [y] can optionally remain geminate when preceded by the   suffix -o/-u and followed
by a vowel, e.g. nax-x-u-(y)y-a ‘you ( ) have sent her’ and tG-r6x-o-(y)y-a ‘you ( ) send
her’. I assume that this is a mere phonetic alternation and I exclude the optional phonetic gemination
from our discussion.
10. The /I/ of /-n6I/ fuses with the following [y] of the Heavy , and yet [y] is not geminate.
 OBJECT CLITICS 277

(24) Derivation of the Light  (-rrI → -n)

X X X X X X

Root Root Root Root

Place Place Place Place

Lingual Lingual/Peripheral Lingual Lingual/Peripheral

Coronal Dorsal Coronal Dorsal

=
[–back] [–back]
From a phonological point of view, [n] in (24) is palatalized because it supports
the floating feature [−back]. However, the phonetic difference between n and \
in Chaha is leveled in favor of n, so [−back] of /I/ has no phonetic realization.
The docking of [−back] on /rr/ without a phonetic consequence creates a
phonetic complementarity between /r/ and /I/. In other words, when /r/ and /I/ are
in contact with each other either /r/ or /I/, but not both, can be pronounced. (See
Lowenstamm 1996b: 128 for a discussion of a variety of contexts in which [n/r]
and [y/i] are in complementary distribution.) In cases where /r/ is geminate the
/I/, i.e. its [−back], is unpronounced, it is absorbed by a geminate /rr/ (i.e. [n]).
Such an event is not limited to the  but it is the norm in Chaha, as can be
deduced by comparing the following stems from –k’rI ‘disappear’. (Notice that
[n] and [i] of (25) also alternates with [r], as in k’Gr-o ‘disappear ( )!’).
(25) a. C 6 C C 6 C b. C G C G C

k’ r Dorsal k’ r Dorsal
= =
[–back] [–back]
k’6n6 ‘has disappeared’ k’i ‘Disappear ( )!’
According to my analysis, /r/ is palatalized in both (25a) and (25b) because it
supports [−back]. However, [−back] is not pronounced in (25a) for the same
reason as in (24). In (25b), on the other hand, the simple /r/ is palatalized
phonetically as well. In addition, the palatalized /r/ is vocalized to [i] so /r/ has
no surface manifestation. In both cases, only one of the phonemes is pronounced.
In cases where /r/ and /I/ are singly linked it is always the latter that
surfaces phonetically unless it deletes by an independent process. For instance,
278 SOUND MUTATIONS

neither C2 nor C4 of a quadriradical is ever geminated, so /r/ and /I/ are always
simple in verbs of the type –CrAI, e.g. sGy6 ‘has bought ()’. (See Lowen-
stamm 1996b on such verbs as being of the type –CrAI and for confirmation of
the following statement in them.) Accordingly, /I/ surfaces in all palatalization
contexts, cf. sGy6-m ‘he has bought ()’ and f6c’6-m ‘he () have ground
()’, from –ft’I, while /r/ surfaces only in depalatalization contexts, cf. sGraw-o-
m ‘they () have bought ()’ and f6t’6w-o-m ‘they () have ground
()’. (See also Marcos 1974 on similar alternations.)
A stem /r/ and the 2  /-I/ show the same complementary distribution.
The four words in (26) are formed from –örA ‘eat’. In (26a), r is not geminated,
as is the ö in tG-s6öGr ‘you ( ) break ’. On the other hand, in (26b), r
is geminated, as is the p in tG-t-s6p6r ‘you ( ) are being broken’.
(26) sg.2m (suffix -Ø) sg.2f (suffix /-I/)
a. tG-ö6ra tG-ö6y6 ‘You (sg.) eat .’
b. tG-t-ö6na tG-t-ö6n6 ‘You (sg.) are being eaten.’
The singly linked /r/ in (26a) is palatalized in the second column. The palatal-
ized singly linked /r/ surfaces as [y] so there is no surface [r]. But /r/ in the
second column of (26b) is geminated and nasalized to [n], so /I/ has no surface
manifestation. (See also Hetzron 1975: 43, Rose 1992: 99 and Lowenstamm
1996b for discussion.)
In this account, the  [n] in (24), the [n] in (25a) k’6n6 and the [n] in
(26b) tG-t-ö6n6 are all derived from /rrI/. The /I/ is the final phoneme of the 
suffix in (24), the final root segment in (25a), and an independent suffix in
(26b). In all cases, /I/ has no phonetic realization. But we have seen contexts in
which this /I/ is pronounced, cf. (25b) and (26a, second column). Based on the
above observations concerning the distribution of [n/r/y/i] and the independently
proposed Dorsal Fusion, (16), let us now derive the [n]/[y] alternation of the 
suffix from /-rrI/.
As shown in (27a), a Heavy  includes the Dorsal of the vocoids and the
 /-rrI/. In addition, it is proposed in (16) that the Dorsal of the vocoids fuses
with a following Dorsal. Accordingly, the Dorsals of the vocoids and the suffix-
final /I/ of the  fuse, as shown in (27b). The fusion changes the Dorsal-
Coronal-Dorsal sequence of (27a) to the Coronal-Dorsal sequence of (27b).
 OBJECT CLITICS 279

(27) Derivation of the Heavy  (-rrI → -y)

a. /I, U, A/ +  /-rrI/ b. Dorsals fused
X X X X → X X X X

Root Root Root Root Root

Place Place Place Place Place

Peripheral Lingual Peripheral Lingual Peripheral

Coronal Coronal

Dorsal Dorsal Dorsal

[–back] [–back]

We have seen in (24) that, in the Light , a singly linked /I/ docks on /rr/ and
remains silent as shown by the [n] of (28a), (repeated from (23)). However,
when /I/ is doubly linked it can be realized independent of any segment. The
fused Dorsal in (27) is doubly linked (one X coming from each Dorsal) and has
the terminal feature [−back] of /I/. Thus, it can now be realized as [y]. This
explains why /I/ is pronounced in the Heavy  of (28b).
(28) a. Light b. Heavy
tG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6x-6ma-y-a
‘She/They () send(s) her.’
Note that the Coronal in (27b) is not pronounced as we have only [y] (not the
expected [ny]) in the Heavy clitic of (28b). I assume that /rr/ is silent in the
Heavy  because “r and y are mutually incompatible”, an independently
motivated proposal in Lowenstamm (1996b: 128). Note that both /r/ and /I/ in
(27b) are doubly linked so the number of slots to which they link do not favor
the deletion of one over the other. Nevertheless, we saw in k’i, (25b), and tG-ö6y6
‘you ( ) eat’, from (26a), that when /r/ and /I/ are linked with an equal
number of slots /r/ is silent and /I/ is pronounced. In the same fashion, /r/ is
silent and /I/ is pronounced in (27b), resulting in the Heavy  [y] of (28b).
The doubly linked /I/ also simplifies so the [y] in (28b) is a simplified geminate
which parallels the [p] of Heavy clitics in §9.4.2.
280 SOUND MUTATIONS

9.4.5 LHA in the 1SG clitics

Observe the six variants of the 1 clitics shown below inside the boxes. (As
discussed in §9.4.3, the [p] of (29b) is in free variation with [k].) As it was the
case throughout this chapter, the penultimate suffix is the Case while the final
one is the object marker. Immediately following the stem are the Q2 suffixes —
null in the Light and nonnull in the Heavy series.
(29) The 1 clitics
Light Heavy
a. yG-r6x-Ø-n-i yG-r6x-o-n-i
‘He/They () send(s) () for me.’
b. yG-r6x-Ø-ö-i yG-r6x-o-p-i
‘He/They () send(s) () to my ’
c. yG-r6x-Ø-Ø-e yG-r6x-o-Ø-n
‘He/They () send(s) me.’
The first question to ask would be what the UR of the 1 pronoun (final suffix)
is. Is it /-i/ as in (29a, b), /-e/ as in Light (29c), /-n/ as in Heavy (29c) or
something different from the three? In fact, the -e of the Light (29c) is a fused
6i (i.e. 6i → e). So the choice will be between /-i/, /-6i/, /-n/ or something
different from all. Four reasons substantiate that the UR of the 1 is different
from the three phonetically realized suffixes.
The first argument is based on the [n] vs. [r] alternation of the benefactive
(), (30). In (30a), the  /-r/ is followed by a consonant-initial final suffix,
in which case it nasalizes to [n]. (See §9.4.8 as to why it nasalizes, but note that
this nasalization has nothing to do with  since the nasal occurs in both
columns regardless of the fact that the first column is Light and the second
column is Heavy.) On the other hand, in (30b), /-r/ is followed by a vocoid-
initial final suffix and in this case /r/ remains an approximant. So, these give us
a testing ground to determine whether the final suffix of (30c) is underlyingly
consonant- or vowel-initial. According to this test, the final suffix in (30c) is
consonant-initial so it is not /-i/ (or the /-i/ should be analyzed as a consonant).
(30) [n] vs. [r] alternation of 
Light  Heavy 
a. tG-r6xG-Ø-n-ç yG-r6x-6ma-n-ky
‘She/They send(s) () for you ( ).’
b. tG-r6x-Ø-r-a yG-r6x-6ma-r-a
‘She/They () send(s) () for her.’
 OBJECT CLITICS 281

c. tG-r6x-Ø-n-i yG-r6x-6ma-n-i
‘She/They () send(s) () for me.’
The second argument that the 1 object [−i] is not vowel-initial — and, in fact,
it is n-initial — comes again from the behavior of the  -n in (29a), (30c). As
we have seen in §4.9.2 and §5.3.3, r-n → n-n and r-r → l-l whereas an r-Vowel
sequence remains unchanged. Assuming, till §9.4.8, that n~r in (30) derives from
/r/ it indicates that what follows the n (i.e. the [i]) is an underlying /n/.) In other
words, the benefactive 1 clitic in (29a), (30c) includes /r+ni/. The /r/ nasalizes
because it is followed by a nasal consonant. But the n which triggers nasalization
deletes (see below) so we do not obtain a phonetic geminate nn.
The third argument is based on the [n] vs. -Ø alternation of the , shown
in (31). The final suffix is vocoid-initial in (31a), in which case the Light 
is [−n] and its Heavy counterpart is [−y]. On the other hand, the final suffix is
consonant-initial in (31b), and in this case the  is -Ø in both Light and
Heavy series.
(31) [n] vs. -Ø alternation of 
Light  Heavy 
a. tG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6x-6ma-y-a
‘She/They () send(s) her.’
b. tG-r6x-Ø-Ø-x6 yG-r6x-6ma-Ø-k6
‘She/They () send(s) you ( ).’
c. tG-r6x-Ø-Ø-e yG-r6x-6ma-Ø-n
‘She/They () send(s) me.’
That the  in (31c) is -Ø shows that both [−e] and [−n] are consonant-initial,
as are [−x6] and [−k6]. This initial consonant is /n/ so /-i/ cannot underlie [−e]
and [−n].
The forth argument that the 1 object suffix is n-initial comes from the
suffix [−6i] → [−e] in (31c). To my knowledge, the only phonetic consonant of
Chaha to alternate with 6 is n, e.g. 6-s6öGr ‘I break ’ vs. tG-n-s6öGr ‘while I
break ’. This suggests that the 6 of 6i may come from n, with the derivation
-ni → -6i → -e.
Based on the arguments given above I suggest that the UR of the 1 is
/-ni/. The n of /-ni/ deletes when it is immediately preceded by the consonants of
the Case suffixes, and in that case we obtain the [−i] of (29a, b), reproduced as
(32a, b).
282 SOUND MUTATIONS

(32) The 1 clitics

Light Heavy
a. yG-r6x-Ø-n-i yG-r6x-o-n-i
‘He/They () send(s) () for me.’
b. yG-r6x-Ø-ö-i yG-r6x-o-p-i
‘He/They () send(s) () to my ’
c. yG-r6x-Ø-Ø-e yG-r6x-o-Ø-n
‘He/They () send(s) me.’
The n becomes 6 when it is not preceded by the Dorsa X (i.e. it is preceded by
null Q2 and null ) and in this case we have the Light suffix [−e] of (32c).
The n is unaffected when it is preceded by the Dorsa X (i.e. it is preceded by
a nonnull Q2 and a null ) but in this case the i of /-ni/ deletes, as in the
Heavy (32c).11

9.4.6 LHA as [ n] vs. -Ø alternation

There are three differences between (33a) and (33b). First, the  suffix is [n]
in (33a) while it is -Ø in (33b). Second, the consonant of the object suffixes is
a simple [x] in (33a) but it is a simplified geminate [k] in (33b). Third, the
object suffixes are vocoid-initial in (33a) while they are consonant-initial in
(33b).
(33) The second person accusative clitics of the Perfective
a. Light b. Heavy
nax6-n-axma nax-o-Ø-kma
‘He/They has/have sent you ( ).’
nax6-n-axu nax-o-Ø-ku
‘He/They has/have sent you ( ).’
nax6-c(6)-n-aç nax-6ma-Ø-ky
‘She/They has/have sent you ( ).’
nax6-c(6)-n-ax6 nax-6ma-Ø-k6
‘She/They has/have sent you ( ).’

11. Polotsky (1951: 19–20) derives [−i] from *\ by diachronic denasalization. His analysis is
supported by the [\] found in related languages where phonetic [\] is present. For instance, instead
of the Chaha [n], we obtain [\] in Inor, e.g. yG-d6rgwG-\ ‘one/they () hit me’, and Amharic, e.g.
m6tta-\ ‘he hit me’. My analysis is similar to his in that /ni/ has the nasality and palatality of [\]. I
do not postulate /\/ as a synchronic input for it has no phonetic realization and it will be the only
underlying palatal consonant.
 OBJECT CLITICS 283

The vocoid-initial object suffixes of (33a) are not used in the Imperfective ,
e.g. yG-r6x-Ø-x6 (not *yG-r6xG-n-ax6) ‘he sends you ( )’, and in all the
aspects of the  and . I assume that whether the object suffix is vocoid-
initial, as in (33a), or consonant-initial, as in (33b), is idiosyncratic. In addition,
I believe that the -Ø suffix has to be listed as a lexical property of the , i.e.
the  has two forms: /-rrI/ before vocoids and -Ø before consonants, so the
[−n]/Ø alternation above cannot be given a phonological explanation.
On the other hand, I have shown in §9.4.4 that before vocoid-initial object
suffixes the Light  is [n], as in tG-r6x-Ø-n-a ‘she sends her’, and the Heavy
 is [y], as in yG-r6x-6ma-y-a ‘they () send her’, so the Light  [n] of
(33a) is expected (since it is not preceded by the Dorsal X). Furthermore, the
[x]/[k] alternation can be explained phonologically, and without any additional
mechanism. The Heavy clitics include the Dorsal which fuses with Dorsal of the
velar-initial object suffixes. The Dorsal links with the X’s of the Dorsal and the
suffix-initial velar giving rise to gemination, hence strengthening as expected.
The  is -Ø also when the subject is first person and irrespective of
whether the subject is singular (34a) or plural (34b), showing that the subject
plays no role in determining whether the  suffix /-rrI/ or -Ø is used.
(34) a. nax-x-Ø-x6 → [naxk6]
‘I have sent you ( ).’
b. nax-ne-Ø-x6 → [naxnek6]
‘We have sent you ( ).’
The subject suffix /-x/ of (34a) is always followed by Light clitics because it
lacks the Dorsal X. But, here, it is followed by /x/ of the second person object
pronoun and the two /x/’s fuse, resulting in a /xx/ sequence which eventually
strengthens and simplifies to [k]. (See the discussion of (17) above and Hetzron
1972b: 467). On the other hand, the /x/ in (34b) is geminated due to the preceding
Dorsal X of /-n6I/ (→ [ne]). So the [k] in (34a) is the fusion of subject and object
suffixes whereas the one in (34b) is due to the Dorsal X of the subject suffixes.

9.4.7 LHA and the 3SG MASC object labialization

The last, but very important, distinction between the Light and Heavy clitics
concerns the 3  object pronoun labialization. Before discussing the
effects of the 3  labialization on the  let us see how it functions. (See
McCarthy 1983 and Akinlabi 1996 for an autosegmental treatment of the 3
 object. Some of their generalizations are different from mine because they
focus only on the Light accusative forms.)
284 SOUND MUTATIONS

The 3  object pronoun in Chaha is /-6U/ (in all contexts) with a
floating feature [round] which starts at the end (indicated by ↑↑ in (35)) and
moves leftwards till it finds a target (labial or velar) to dock onto, as exemplified
in the first column of (35). (As discussed in §7.2.2, the [high] of /U/ palatalizes
a left-adjacent coronal obstruent but this /U/ is not immediately preceded by a
coronal obstruent so it does not cause palatalization, see also §7.4.5). The feature
[round] targets the Case marker in (35a) and the subject suffix in (35b). (Ignore
the Q1 vs. Q2 distinction and their null suffixes for the moment.) In the absence
of a labializable Case or subject suffix, [round] enters the stem and labializes the
rightmost target. Accordingly, the rightmost targets [m], [f] and [k’] in (35c, d, e)
respectively are labialized, as shown in the first column. ([w] in (35a) is a
labialized [ö], i.e. [öw]. All affirmative Perfective forms include a final -m,
which is omitted in (35). Because this -m follows ↑↑ it is never labialized.)12
(35) The 3  object labialization
Light 3  clitic Heavy 3  clitic
a. k6f6t-xG-w-6↑↑ k6f6t-ne-p/kw-6↑↑
‘I/We have opened () to his .’
b. k6f6t-xwG-r-6↑↑ k6f6t-xG-ma-r-6↑↑
‘I/You ( ) have opened for him.’
c. f6t’6mw6-c(6)-n-↑↑ f6t’6m-ç-i-↑↑
‘She/You ( ) has/have closed it.’
d. k6f w6t6-r-6↑↑ k6f6t-ne-r-6↑↑
‘He/We has/have opened () for him.’
e. k’w6n6s6-r-6↑↑ k’6n6s-o-r-6↑↑
‘He/They () has/have started for him.’
[round] labializes the nearest (to ↑↑) preceding target. For instance, in (35a), the
 [ö] in the first column and [p]/[k] in the second are the nearest preceding
targets so they are labialized. This poses no problem. But in (35b), the conso-
nants of the subject suffixes (i.e. [x] in the first column and [m] in the second

12. The final vowel [6] in (35) is part of the 3  pronoun and not of the Case markers. This
is shown by the absence of this vowel between the Case markers and the consonant-initial pronouns,
e.g. nax6-ö-x6 (not *nax6-ö6-x6) ‘he sent () to your ( ) detriment’ and nax6-n-x6 (not
*nax6-r6-x6) ‘he sent () for you ( )’. This shows, as Polotsky (1951: 33) remarks, that the
underlying form of the 3  pronoun contains the vowel [6], -6U → w…-6↑↑. To account for the
absence of [6] in the accusative 3  in (35c), I assume that /6/ deletes due to the preceding /I/
of the  /-rrI/. As already mentioned, in contrast with all previous analyses, the [n] and the [i] in
(35c) are not part of the pronoun. They are rather different realizations of the .
 OBJECT CLITICS 285

one) are the nearest preceding targets. Nonetheless, [x] is labialized whereas [m]
is not. (Notice that [x] is Q1 and [m] is part of Q2.) In other words, [round]
cannot reach [m]; hence rounding does not surface. In addition, the respective
rightmost labializable stem consonants [m], [f] and [k’] in (35c, d, e) are the
nearest preceding targets but they are not labialized in the second column either.
Even though all forms in the second column have the feature [round], labial-
ization occurs only in (35a). I therefore must account for the absence of labial-
ization in the second column and for its presence in all the forms in the first
column as well as in the second column of (35a).
All the forms in the second column of (35) contain the nonnull-Q2 suffixes.
As I have argued so far, these suffixes end with a vocoid including the Dorsal
articulator which, I claim, is responsible for the absence of labialization.
The movement of [round] is blocked by Dorsal or Labial everywhere in
Chaha. For example, in (36a), there is no Dorsal or Labial between the original
location of [round] (the final articulator Labial) and the Labial of the medial
stem consonant /f/. Hence, /f/ is labialized. There is, however, the Labial of /f/
between the stem-initial velar /k/ and the origin of [round]. Hence, [round] is
blocked by /f/ from reaching /k/. This explains the absence of labialization on
/k/, cf. (36a) vs. *kw6f w6t6-r-6. (Irrelevant intermediate nodes are omitted.)
(36) Labial or Dorsal as the blocking node
a. Light X 6 X 6 X 6 + X + 6 X

k f t r
Labial
Labial =
[round]
k6f w6t6-Ø-r-6↑↑
open-3 --him
‘He has opened () for him.’
b. Heavy X 6 X 6 X + X X X + X + 6 X

k f t n 6 r
Dorsal Labial
= =
[–back]
[round]
k6f6t-ne-r-6↑↑
open---him
‘We have opened () for him.’
286 SOUND MUTATIONS

In the same manner, in (36b), the Dorsal of the plural subject suffix /-n6I/
intervenes between /f/ and the origin of [round]. The feature [−back] of /I/
abandons its Dorsal and docks on the preceding schwa to yield [e]. [round] of
the 3  /-6U/ docks on the abandoned Dorsal of /I/. Therefore, /f/ is not
labialized, which explains the absence of the 3  labialization, cf. (36b) vs.
*k6f w6t-ne-r-6. In such cases, [round] remains unpronounced, cf. (36b) vs. *k6f6t-
new-r-6↑↑, and I have no explanation for it. But, whether labialization is visible,
as in (36a), or not, as in (36b), the 3  suffix is /-6U/ and it includes
[round] and its articulator Labial.
The fact that [m] (part of the Q2 suffix -ma) in the Heavy (35b), k6f6t-xG-
ma-r-6↑↑ ‘you ( ) have opened () for him’, is not labialized, shows that
something found between m and ↑↑ blocks [round] from reaching the /m/. On
the other hand, [round] can appear on the Case-marker /-ö/ in both Light and
Heavy alternants, cf. first and second columns of (35a) and their respective
representations in (37a, b). These demonstrate that there is no blockage between
the Case marker and the original site of [round], i.e. the blockage precedes /ö/.
It follows that the blockage is the final constituent of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes of
the subject (i.e. Dorsal of a in k6f6t-xG-ma-r-6↑↑). In this account, the labial-
ization of the  /-ö/ in (37b) receives a straightforward explanation because
/-ö/ is not followed by the blocking Dorsal of these suffixes. In addition, the
Dorsal of the  suffix and the Labial of the  /-ö/ fuse to form a Dor-
sal/Labial combination, as in (37b). Dorsal/Labial links to the X slots of /I/ and
/ö/. The double-linking is responsible for devoicing and hardening of /ö/ to [p],
the Dorsal for optionally velarizing [p] to [k], and the floating feature [round] for
labializing [p]/[k].
(37) Why the  /-ö/ is always labialized
a. Light X 6 X 6 X + X + X + 6 X

k f t x
Labial Labial
=
[round]
k6f6t-xG-w-6↑↑
open-1--him
‘I have opened () to his detriment.’
 OBJECT CLITICS 287

b. Heavy X 6 X 6 X + X X X + X + 6 X

k f t n 6
Labial/Dorsal Labial
= =
[–back]
[round]
k6f6t-ne-pw-6↑↑/k6f6t-ne-kw-6↑↑
open---him
‘We have opened () to his ’
In (37b), the Q2 suffix /-n6I/ and the Dorsal of its /I/ precede the Labial of the 
/-ö/. In addition, the Peripheral nodes (not shown in (37)) dominating the two
articulators fuse and dominate Labial/Dorsal node of (37b). The autonomous terminal
feature [−back] of /I/ docks on /6/ of /-n6I/, fronting the /6/ to [e]. Moreover,
[round] targets the fused Dorsal/Labial, which gives rise to either [pw] or [kw].
This explains why /-ö/ is labialized in both Light (37a) and Heavy (37b) clitics.
Labialization caused by the floating 3  object pronoun is banned
from labializing a nonnull Q2 suffix and entering the stem in the presence a
nonnull Q2. Based on this Hetzron (1971: 206) remarks: “[t]he Internal Labial-
ization is established before the Light O 3  suffix *-nu → -n in all these
languages.” So far, no explanation as to why internal labialization is not “estab-
lished” before the Heavy 3  object suffix *-yu → -y has been offered.
Given the labialization of the Heavy  /-ö/ in (37b) it is clear that the Heavy
3  clitic consists in the floating labialization. The labialization of the 
/-ö/ as well as the ban from passing the final vocoids of the nunnull-Q2 suffixes
of the subject gets a natural explanation in my analysis. In other words, [round]
can labialize a target that follows the Dorsal X of a Q2 suffix (because there is
nothing to block it) while it cannot labialize a target the precedes the Dorsal X
(because this Dorsal X blocks it).

9.4.8 Apparent absence of LHA

I have argued that the final /I, U, A/ of the nonnull Q2 suffixes give rise to
Heavy clitics, which are characterized by gemination, palatalization, velarization
and blocking the movement of [round]. We expect these processes to occur in all
the three sets of Case markers (,  and ) when they are preceded by
/I, U, A/. But there are some cases in which the expected gemination does not
occur so it is problematic to the analysis. In this section, we will discuss such
remaining problems.
288 SOUND MUTATIONS

The movement of the 3  object [round] is blocked from reaching the
stem in the Heavy clitics of (38). According to my analysis, the [round] does not
dock on any constituent preceding a Q2 suffix because the Dorsal X of Q2,
which immediately precedes the clitics, blocks its movement.
(38) The 3  object labialization is blocked in the benefactive
Light  Heavy 
a. 6-r6xw-Ø-r-6↑↑ nG-r6x-ne-r-6↑↑
‘I/We send () for him.’
b. tG-r6xw-Ø-r-6↑↑ tG-r6x-o-r-6↑↑
‘You (/ ) send () for him.’
c. tG-r6xw-Ø-r-6↑↑ yG-r6x-6ma-r-6↑↑
‘She/They () send(s) for him.’
That the 3  object labialization is blocked in the Heavy  shows that
these forms include the Dorsal X. Yet, the Dorsal X in (38) does not trigger
gemination of the  suffix /r/. Besides, in contrast to the Dorsal-X-triggered
gemination of /x/ in the Heavy (39a), no sign of gemination can be identified in
the Heavy (39b, c).
(39) [n] vs. [r] alternation of  (repeated from (30))
Light  Heavy 
a. tG-r6xG-Ø-n-ç yG-r6x-6ma-n-ky
‘She/They send(s) () for you ( ).’
b. tG-r6x-Ø-r-a yG-r6x-6ma-r-a
‘She/They () send(s) () for her.’
c. tG-r6x-Ø-n-i yG-r6x-6ma-n-i
‘She/They () send(s) () for me.’
In the Heavy clitic of (39b), /-r/ remains [r] even though my analysis predicts
that it should be doubly linked (hence nasalize to [n]) due to the preceding
Dorsal X. In addition to this, the nasalized  /-r/ of (39a) does not assimilate
in place to a following velar while a nasalized /r/ assimilates in place to the
following obstruent, as in (40). (But see §4.2.1, footnote 3, for /rr/).
(40) Nasal-obstruent assimilation
a. y6-]x6ö *y6-nx6ö
‘Let him find ()!’ (cf. n6k6ö ‘has found ()’)
b. y6-]kGs *y6nkGs
‘let him bite ()!’ (cf. n6k6s ‘has bitten ()’)
 OBJECT CLITICS 289

The difference between (39a) and (40), i.e. lack of nasal-obstruent harmony in
(39a) and its presence in (40), is due to an exceptional characteristic of the 
/-r/ in (39a). Similarly, nasalization caused by a following consonant as in (39a)
is an idiosyncratic property of the  /-r/.
Absence of place assimilation in (39a), nasalization of /-r/ in (39a), and
presence of the liquid [r] (instead of a [n]) in the Heavy clitic of (39b) do not
follow from the phonology of Chaha. This suffix is a diachronic /-l/ so it may
have preserved some properties of /l/, which may explain why it behaves the
way it does.

9.4.9 Summary of LHA

The differences between Light and Heavy clitics can be summarized as follows.
(41) Summary of 
I. In the second person objects -(n-a)x alternates with -k.
II. The  alternates between [−ö] and [−p] when (I.) does not
apply.
III. The  alternates between [−n] and [−y] before vocoid-initial
object suffixes.
IV. The labial [p] of Heavy clitics is in free variation with the
dorsal [k].
V. The  /-r/ is invariant with regard to .
VI. The 1 alternates between [−e] and [−n] in the accusative/
dative.
VII. The floating [round] of the 3  object is blocked by the
Dorsal X of the final vocoids of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes.
In order to help us verify these generalizations the complete list of Light and
Heavy clitics of Chaha given in Table 9.1 is reproduced below as Table 9.3.
We have a total of ten object pronouns and three Case markers. Their
combination gives thirty clitics (10 × 3 = 30) of which each has a Light form and
a Heavy form (30 × 2 = 60). There are also four second person Light  clitics
with -n-a, which augments the total number to 64.
290 SOUND MUTATIONS

Table 9.3. Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha

(42)   
object Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy
me -Ø-e -Ø-n -ö-i -p-i -n-i -n-i
us -Ø-nd6 -Ø-nd6 -ö-nd6 -p-nd6 -Ø-nd6 -Ø-nd6
you ( ) (-n-a)x6 -Ø-k6 -ö-x6 -ö-k6 -n-x6 -n-k6
you ( ) (-n-a)ç -Ø-ky -ö-ç -ö-ky -n-ç -n-ky
you ( ) (-n-a)xu -Ø-ku -ö-xu -ö-ku -n-xu -n-ku
you ( ) (-n-a)xma -Ø-kma -ö-xma -ö-kma -n-xma -n-kma
him/it -n-U -y-U -ö-6U -p-6U -r-6U -r-6U
her -n-a -y-a -ö-a -p-a -r-a -r-a
them () -n-o -y-o -ö-o -p-o -r-o -r-o
them () -n-6ma -y-6ma -ö-6ma -p-6ma -r-6ma -r-6ma

9.5 Supporting evidence for my hypothesis

Polotsky (1938, 1951), Hetzron (1968, 1971, 1972, 1977) and Goldenberg (1968)
have proposed hypotheses, to be discussed immediately, concerning the trigger
of . We will now see the similarities and the differences between their
hypotheses and mine and what I claim to be the advantages of my analysis.

9.5.1 Previous and present hypotheses

All the aforementioned authors attribute the  to the nature of the segment
preceding the clitics. Polotsky (1938: 161) writes: “[o]n constatera que la série A
[Light] s’emploie après consonne et la série B [Heavy] après voyelle (longue).”
Hetzron (1968: 165) claims: “… their distribution is arbitrary from a synchronical
point of view, but very well motivated historically.” In the same vein, Golden-
berg (1968: 81) claims: “[f]or the explanation of this kind of conditioning, which
when described synchronically looks completely capricious, a historical glance …
will yield interesting results.” Hetzron (1977: 63) describes the historical develop-
ment as follows: “Heavy suffixes occur where there used to be long vowels
preceding … and were developed through a compensatory change — V: +C- →
-V+C: —, i.e. when vocalic length ceased to be relevant the subsequent conso-
nant was lengthened.”
On the other hand, I have proposed a synchronic trigger: the final vocoids
/I, U, A/ of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes, i.e. the Dorsal articulator and X slot of the
vocoids. Heavy clitics result from a compensatory change X+C → CC — where
 OBJECT CLITICS 291

X represents /I, U, A/. In addition, my proposal predicts that compensation cannot

apply if the vocoids belong to the Q1 suffix or the stem because in these cases
the vocoids are not adjacent to the clitics while compensation requires adjacency
between the trigger and target. In my analysis, /I, U, A/ are a necessary but not
sufficient condition for Heavy clitics whereas in previous analyses they are
sufficient. The discussions in the following subsections show that my analysis is
to be preferred. Furthermore, we have seen that the proposed Dorsal of the
vocoids gives a new explanation for the Dorsal/Labial free variation of the ,
[n/y] alternation of the , and the ban on the movement of the 3 
object pronoun labialization.

9.5.2 Clitics following the IPL

Polotsky (1951: 32) states: “[t]he 1st pl. of all tenses, -n6, takes the Heavy
suffixes, though it ends in a short vowel.” In addition, Hetzron (1968: 166)
claims: “[a]lthough the final -a (or -6) is short in every modern Ethiopian
Semitic language, the length might occasionally have survived and led to the use
of heavy suffixes.” As both authors remarked, the clitics following the  are
Heavy. However, according to my analysis, the  does not have a short vowel, it
ends with /I/. This is demonstrated by the presence of the preclitic alternant -ne, e.g.
nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-k6 ‘we open to your ( ) detriment’, which derives from /-n6I/.
As I have argued throughout, the nonnull-Q2 suffixes are followed by
Heavy clitics and /-n6I/ is an invariable (hence Q2) suffix. Like all invariable
subject suffixes, it is always followed by Heavy clitics. This is predicted by my
analysis — no additional statements are required to account for the fact that the
 /-n6I/ (→ [ne]) is followed by Heavy clitics. It has the required vocoid /I/ and it
is adjacent with a following clitic as no suffix intervenes between Q2 and a clitic.

9.5.3 Clitics following the two 2SG FEM allomorphs

Comparing the phonetic forms (second column) of (43), there is no distinction

between the [c] in the Perfective (43a) and that in the Nonperfective (43b).
Nonetheless, the clitic in (43a) is Light while the one in (43b) is Heavy, i.e.
regardless of the common preclitic palatalized consonant the clitic is Light in one
case and Heavy in the other. If the mere phonological complexity of the segment
preceding the clitics were what conditions the weight of the clitic we should have
found Heavy clitics after both forms. This is problematic to the previous
analyses. Thus, a theory that does not distinguish Q1 from Q2 suffixes cannot
predict the type of the following suffix.
292 SOUND MUTATIONS

(43) (Q1-)verb(-Q1)-Q2-Case-object (where there is only one Q1 per verb)

a. mw6t6-tI-Ø-ö-o → mw6t6cöo
‘She has died on them () (= to their )’
b. t-mot-I-ö-o → tGmocp/ko
‘You ( ) die on them ().’
However, in my analysis (left column), the /I/ of the Perfective (43a) is part of
a Q1 suffix (so it is immediately followed by a null Q2) whereas the /I/ of (43b)
is a nonnull-Q2 suffix (so it is immediately followed by /-ö/). The proposal that
Light clitics are immediately preceded by null-Q2 suffixes and that Heavy clitics
are immediately preceded by nonnull ones explains why /I/ in (43a) is followed
by a Light clitic and the one in (43b) by a Heavy clitic.

9.5.4 Stem-final vs. suffix-final vocoids and the following clitics

Comparing the phonetic forms (second column) of (44a) and (44b) shows that
the underlined clitics are preceded by the exact same segment, i.e. -x6 of (44a)
and -k6 of (44b) are both preceded by [a], -öa of (44a) and -p/ka of (44b) are
both preceded by [c] and so on. It then follows that the conditioning factor for
the Light clitics of (44a) and Heavy clitics of (44b) is not only the content of the
preceding segment.
(44) Stem-final vs. suffix-final vocoids and the following clitics
a. 6-s6mGA-Ø-x6 → 6s6max6
‘I listen to you ( ).’
t-m6AtGI-Ø-ö-a → tGmacöa
‘You ( ) get angry at her.’
t-m6AtGI-Ø-ö-i → tGmacöi
‘She gets angry at me.’
y-a-t’6fGU-Ø-n-6ma → yat’6f wn6ma
‘He satiates them ().’
b. y-s6mGA-6mGA-x6 → yGs6m6mak6
‘They () listen to you ( ).’
t-m6AtGI-I-ö-a → tGmacp/ka
‘You ( ) get angry at her.’
y-m6AtGI-U-ö-i → yGmwacp/ki
‘One gets angry at me.’
y-a-t’6fGU-U-n-6ma → yat’6f wy6ma
‘One satiates them ().’
 OBJECT CLITICS 293

These examples show that the mere presence of a preceding vocoid is insuffi-
cient to obtain a Heavy clitic. The difference in (44a) and (44b) gets a natural
explanation in an analysis, such as mine, which requires adjacency between
vocoids and Heavy clitics and which postulates null Q2 suffixes between the
stem and the clitics, as in (44a) (cf. left column). A theory that does not posit
two subject positions will not have the option of postulating the null-Q2 suffix
in (44a), where the subject is phonetically realized as a prefix, and cannot
explain why the stem-final and suffix-final vocoids are followed by different
types of clitics.

9.6 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have discussed three sets of Case markers and accounted for
their alternations based on the independently motivated claim (see §7.2.2) that
the terminal features of /U, I, A/ abandon their articulator Dorsal with its X slot
and dock on a preceding target. We have seen that the abandoned Dorsal X
triggers gemination, velarization and palatalization. It also blocks the movement
of [round].
I have proposed that the  is -Ø before consonants and /-rrI/ before
vocoids. /-rrI/ surfaces as [n] after the null-Q2 suffixes and as [y/i] after the
vocoids of the nonnull Q2 suffixes. The  is /-ö/ and has three forms: [p]
between the Dorsal X and nonvelars, [k] in free variation with [p], and [ö]
elsewhere. The  is /-r/ and has two forms: [r] before vocoids and [n] before
consonants. Accordingly, we have only the following four phonologically
unrelated Case suffixes.
(45) Case suffixes
a.  = -Ø / ____C
= /-rrI/ / ____V
b.  = /-ö/
c.  = /-r/
Other variations of Case suffixes are triggered by the context, mainly by the
presence or absence of a preceding Dorsal X and whether the following object
suffix is vocoid- or consonant-initial.
I have proposed that the 1 is /-ni/. Each second person pronoun has three
forms, e.g. you ( ) is [ax6] in the Perfective Light , [x6] elsewhere in
the Light series and [k6] elsewhere in the Heavy series. The last two derive from
the same UR /-x6/ but the first one has a different UR: /-ax6/. Every third person
294 SOUND MUTATIONS

pronoun has a unique form but [round] of the 3  /-6U/ may or may not
surface depending on the presence or absence of a Q2 suffix following its target.
In general, I have attempted to solve the most complicated and seemingly
unpredictable alternations of Chaha subject and object suffixes. I have tried to
show that there is a system that governs all of them and that it will allow us to
make some accurate predictions. I have proposed an underlying form for all the
alternating affixes and offered a unified account (a common trigger) for all the
alternations. Most of the alternations were shown to follow from the proposed
underlying forms and general principles of Chaha.

Appendix 9
kft ‘open’ conjugated13

1. Subject conjugations without object suffixes

a. Which license Light clitics
Perfective Imperfective Jussive
I k6f6t-xwG-m 6-k6ft nG-kGft
He k6f6t6-m yG-k6ft y6-kGft
She k6f6t6-cG-m tG-k6ft tG-kGft
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-m tG-k6ft kGft
b. Which license Heavy clitics
Perfective Imperfective Jussive
We k6f6t-n6-m nG-k6ftG-n6 nG-kGftG-n6
They () k6f6t-o-m yG-k6ft-o y6-kGft-o
They () k6f6t-6ma-m yG-k6ft-6ma y6-kGft-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-m tG-k6ft-o kGft-o
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-m tG-k6ft-6ma kGft-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-↑-m tG-k6fc-↑ kGfc-↑
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑(m) (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑(m)

13. The conjugation is in the affirmative but some affixes are affected in the negative. For
example, the final -m of the Perfective is absent, e.g. a-]-k6f6t-xw ‘I have not opened ()’. On the
other hand, in the Imperative the second person prefix t- appears when the negative prefix a- or a
tense suffix/auxiliary is introduced, e.g. kGftG-n-i ‘open ( ) () for me!’ vs. a-t-kGftG-n-i ‘do
not open ( ) () for me!’ Similarly, 6- of the 1 Imperfective becomes N- when a- is
added, cf. 6-k6ft ‘I open ()’ vs. a-]-k6ft ‘I do not open ()’. See footnote 7 of Chapter 8
concerning the status of the stem-final vowel and suffixes in the third singular.
The symbols: ↑ = the origin of feminine palatalization (/-I/), ↑↑ = the origin of labialization (and
palatalization) (/-U/) are analytical devices introduced in the conjugation in order to help the reader.
Eliminating them will not affect the conjugation. Hence, you can ignore them in case you find them
to be useless or misleading. I have no arguments showing whether an epenthetic vowel should
precede or follow the affix boundaries but I have chosen the conventional way of putting it before
the boundary, e.g. tG-k6ftG-n-i ‘you ( ) open () for me’ and not t-Gk6ft-Gn-i.
 OBJECT CLITICS 295

2. Subject conjugations with the 1SG object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
He k6f6t-e-m yG-k6ft-e y6-kGft-e
She k6f6t6-c-e-m tG-k6ft-e tG-kGft-e
You ( ) k6f6t-x-e-m tG-k6ft-e kGft-e
They () k6f6t-o-nG-m yG-k6ft-o-n y6-kGft-o-n
They () k6f6t-6ma-nG-m yG-k6ft-6ma-n y6-kGft-6ma-n
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-nG-m tG-k6ft-o-n kGft-o-n
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-nG-m tG-k6ft-6ma-n kGft-6ma-n
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-nG-m tG-k6fcG-↑-n kGfcG-↑-n
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-nG-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n

Malefactive/Instrumental
He k6f6t6-ö-i-m yG-k6ftG-ö-i y6-kGftG-ö-i
She k6f6t-6c(6)-ö-i-m tG-k6ftG-ö-i tG-kGftG-ö-i
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-ö-i-m tG-k6ftG-ö-i kGftG-ö-i
They () k6f6t-o-p/k-i-m yG-k6ft-o-p/k-i y6-kGft-o-p/k-i
They () k6f6t-6ma-p/k-i-m yG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-i y6-kGft-6ma-p/k-i
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-p/k-i-m tG-k6ft-o-p/k-i kGft-o-p/k-i
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-p/k-i-m tG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-i kGft-6ma-p/k-i
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-p/k-i-m tG-k6fcG-↑-p/k-i kGfcG-↑-p/k-i
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-p/k-i-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/k-i (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/k-i

Benefactive
He k6f6t6-n-i-m yG-k6ftG-n-i y6-kGftG-n-i
She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-i-m tG-k6ftG-n-i tG-kGftG-n-i
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-n-i-m tG-k6ftG-n-i kGftG-n-i
They () k6f6t-o-n-i-m yG-k6ft-o-n-i y6-kGft-o-n-i
They () k6f6t-6ma-n-i-m yG-k6ft-6ma-n-i y6-kGft-6ma-n-i
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-n-i-m tG-k6ft-o-n-i kGft-o-n-i
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-n-i-m tG-k6ft-6ma-n-i kGft-6ma-n-i
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-n-i-m tG-k6fcG-↑-n-i kGfcG-↑-n-i
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-n-i-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-i (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-i

3. Subject conjugations with the 1PL object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
He k6f6t6-nd6-m yG-k6ftG-nd6 y6-kGftG-nd6
She k6f6t6-c6/G-nd6-m tG-k6ftG-nd6 tG-kGftG-nd6
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-nd6-m tG-k6ftG-nd6 kGftG-nd6

They () k6f6t-o-nd6-m yG-k6ft-o-nd6 y6-kGft-o-nd6

They () k6f6t-6ma-nd6-m yG-k6ft-6ma-nd6 y6-kGft-6ma-nd6
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-nd6-m tG-k6ft-o-nd6 kGft-o-nd6
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-nd6-m tG-k6ft-6ma-nd6 kGft-6ma-nd6
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-nd6-m tG-k6fcG-↑-nd6 kGfcG-↑-nd6
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-nd6-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-nd6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-nd6
296 SOUND MUTATIONS

Malefactive/Instrumental
He k6f6t6-öG-nd6-m yG-k6ftG-öG-nd6 y6-kGftG-öG-nd6
She k6f6t6-c(6)-öG-nd6-m tG-k6ftG-öG-nd6 tG-kGftG-öG-nd6
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-öG-nd6-m tG-k6ftG-öG-nd6 kGftG-öG-nd6

They () k6f6t-o-p/kG-nd6-m yG-k6ft-o-p/kG-nd6 y6-kGft-o-p/kG-nd6

They () k6f6t-6ma-p/kG-nd6-m yG-k6ft-6ma-p/kG-nd6 y6-kGft-6ma-p/kG-nd6
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-p/kG-nd6-m tG-k6ft-o-p/kG-nd6 kGft-o-p/kG-nd6
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-p/kG-nd6-m tG-k6ft-6ma-p/kG-nd6 kGft-6ma-p/kG-nd6
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-p/kG-nd6-m tG-k6fcG-↑-p/kG-nd6 kGfcG-↑-p/kG-nd6
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-p/kG-nd6-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/kG-nd6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/kG-nd6

Benefactive
Same as Accusative/Dative

4. Subject conjugations with the 3SG MASC object suffix14

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
I k6f6t-xwG-nG-↑↑-m 6-k6f wtG-n-↑↑ nG-kGf wtG-n-↑↑
He k6f w6t6-nG-↑↑-m yG-k6f wtG-n-↑↑ y6-kGf wtG-n-↑↑
She k6f w6t6-c(6)-nG-↑↑-m tG-k6f wtG-n-↑↑ tG-kGf wtG-n-↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-xw6-nG-↑↑-m tG-k6f wtG-n-↑↑ kGf wtG-n-↑↑

We k6f6t-ne-↑↑-m nG-k6ftG-ne-↑↑ nG-kGftG-ne-↑↑

They () k6f6t-6w-i-↑↑-m yG-k6ft-6w-i-↑↑ y6-kGft-6w-i-↑↑
They () k6f6t-6m7-↑↑-m yG-k6ft-6m7-↑↑ y6-kGft-6m7-↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-xGw-i-↑↑-m tG-k6ft-6w-i-↑↑ kGft-6w-i-↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-xGm7-↑↑-m tG-k6ft-6m7-↑↑ kGft-6m7-↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-ç-i-↑↑-m tG-k6fc-↑-i-↑↑ kGfc-↑-i-↑↑
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-i-↑↑-m yG-k6f wc-↑↑-i-↑↑ (y6-)kGf wc-↑↑-i-↑↑

Malefactive/Instrumental
I k6f6t-xG-w-6↑↑-m 6-k6ftG-w-6↑↑ nG-kGftG-w-6↑↑
He k6f6t6-w-6↑↑-m yG-k6ftG-w-6↑↑ y6-kGftG-w-6↑↑
She k6f6t6-c(6)-w-6↑↑-m tG-k6ftG-w-6↑↑ tG-kGftG-w-6↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-w-6↑↑-m tG-k6ftG-w-6↑↑ kGftG-w-6↑↑

We k6f6t-ne-p/kw-6↑↑-m nG-k6ftG-ne-p/kw-6↑↑ nG-kGftG-ne-p/kw-6↑↑

They () k6f6t-o-p/kw-6↑↑-m yG-k6ft-o-p/kw-6↑↑ y6-kGft-o-p/kw-6↑↑
They () k6f6t-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑-m yG-k6ft-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑ y6-kGft-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-p/kw-6↑↑-m tG-k6ft-o-p/kw-6↑↑ kGft-o-p/kw-6↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-p/kw-6↑↑-m tG-k6ft-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑ kGft-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑

14. Three remarks are in order. i) The labialization on -xwG is the 3  object labialization
docked on the 1 subject suffix -xG. Hence, it is not part of the 1 ii) The origin of labialization
on k6f w6c-, -k6f wc(G)- and -kGf wc(G)- is the impersonal subject, not the 3  object. iii) The y of
the Heavy  becomes [i] if it is preceded by an onset, e.g. k6f6txGwim, if not it coalesces with the
preceding vowel, e.g. k6f6txGm7m.
 OBJECT CLITICS 297

You ( ) k6f6t-çG-p/kw-6↑↑-m tG-k6fcG-↑-p/kw-6↑↑ kGfcG-↑-p/kw-6↑↑

Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-p/kw-6↑↑-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/kw-6↑↑ (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/kw-6↑↑

Benefactive
I k6f6t-xwG-r-6↑↑-m 6-k6f wtG-r-6↑↑ nG-kGf wtG-r-6↑↑
He k6f w6t6-r-6↑↑-m yG-k6f wtG-r-6↑↑ y6-kGf wtG-r-6↑↑
She k6f w6t6-c(6)-r-6↑↑-m tG-k6f wtG-r-6↑↑ tG-kGf wtG-r-6↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-xw6-r-6↑↑-m tG-k6f wtG-r-6↑↑ kGf wtG-r-6↑↑

We k6f6t-ne-r-6↑↑-m nG-k6ftG-ne-r-6↑↑ nG-kGftG-ne-r-6↑↑

They () k6f6t-o-r-6↑↑-m yG-k6ft-o-r-6↑↑ y6-kGft-o-r-6↑↑
They () k6f6t-6ma-r-6↑↑-m yG-k6ft-6ma-r-6↑↑ y6-kGft-6ma-r-6↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-r-6↑↑-m tG-k6ft-o-r-6↑↑ kGft-o-r-6↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-r-6↑↑-m tG-k6ft-6ma-r-6↑↑ kGft-6ma-r-6↑↑
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-r-6↑↑-m tG-k6fcG-↑-r-6↑↑ kGfcG-↑-r-6↑↑
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-r-6↑↑-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-r-6↑↑ (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-r-6↑↑

5. Subject conjugations with the 3SG FEM object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
I k6f6t-xG-n-a-m 6-k6ftG-n-a nG-kGftG-n-a
He k6f6t6-n-a-m yG-k6ftG-n-a y6-kGftG-n-a
She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-a-m tG-k6ftG-n-a tG-kGftG-n-a
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-n-a-m tG-k6ftG-n-a kGftG-n-a
We k6f6t-n6-y-a-m nG-k6ftG-n6-y-a nG-kGftG-n6-y-a
They () k6f6t-o-(y)y-a-m yG-k6ft-o-(y)y-a y6-kGft-o-(y)y-a
They () k6f6t-6ma-y-a-m yG-k6ft-6ma-y-a y6-kGft-6ma-y-a
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-(y)y-a-m tG-k6ft-o-(y)y-a kGft-o-(y)y-a
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-y-a-m tG-k6ft-6ma-y-a kGft-6ma-y-a
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-y-a-m tG-k6fcG-↑-y-a kGfcG-↑-y-a
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-y-a-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-y-a (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-y-a

Malefactive/Instrumental
I k6f6t-xG-ö-a-m 6-k6ftG-ö-a nG-kGftG-ö-a
He k6f6t6-ö-a-m yG-k6ftG-ö-a y6-kGftG-ö-a
She k6f6t6-c(6)-ö-a-m tG-k6ftG-ö-a tG-kGftG-ö-a
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-ö-a-m tG-k6ftG-ö-a kGftG-ö-a
We k6f6t-ne-p/k-a-m nG-k6ftG-ne-p/k-a nG-kGftG-ne-p/k-a
They () k6f6t-o-p/k-a-m yG-k6ft-o-p/k-a y6-kGft-o-p/k-a
They () k6f6t-6ma-p/k-a-m yG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-a y6-kGft-6ma-p/k-a
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-p/k-a-m tG-k6ft-o-p/k-a kGft-o-p/k-a
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-p/k-a-m tG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-a kGft-6ma-p/k-a
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-p/k-a-m tG-k6fcG-↑-p/k-a kGfcG-↑-p/k-a
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-p/k-a-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/k-a (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/k-a

Benefactive
I k6f6t-xG-r-a-m 6-k6ftG-r-a nG-kGftG-r-a
He k6f6t6-r-a-m yG-k6ftG-r-a y6-kGftG-r-a
298 SOUND MUTATIONS

She k6f6t6-c(6)-r-a-m tG-k6ftG-r-a tG-kGftG-r-a

You ( ) k6f6t-x6-r-a-m tG-k6ftG-r-a kGftG-r-a
We k6f6t-ne-r-a-m nG-k6ftG-ne-r-a nG-kGftG-ne-r-a
They () k6f6t-o-r-a-m yG-k6ft-o-r-a y6-kGft-o-r-a
They () k6f6t-6ma-r-a-m yG-k6ft-6ma-r-a y6-kGft-6ma-r-a
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-r-a-m tG-k6ft-o-r-a kGft-o-r-a
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-r-a-m tG-k6ft-6ma-r-a kGft-6ma-r-a
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-r-a-m tG-k6fcG-↑-r-a kGfcG-↑-r-a
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-r-a-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-r-a (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-r-a

6. Subject conjugations with the 3PL MASC object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
I k6f6t-xG-n-o-m 6-k6ftG-n-o nG-kGftG-n-o
He k6f6t6-n-o-m yG-k6ftG-n-o y6-kGftG-n-o
She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-o-m tG-k6ftG-n-o tG-kGftG-n-o
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-n-o-m tG-k6ftG-n-o kGftG-n-o
We k6f6t-n6-y-o-m nG-k6ftG-n6-y-o nG-kGftG-n6-y-o
They () k6f6t-o-(y)y-o-m yG-k6ft-o-(y)y-o y6-kGft-o-(y)y-o
They () k6f6t-6ma-y-o-m yG-k6ft-6ma-y-o y6-kGft-6ma-y-o
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-(y)y-o-m tG-k6ft-o-(y)y-o kGft-o-(y)y-o
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-y-o-m tG-k6ft-6ma-y-o kGft-6ma-y-o
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-y-o-m tG-k6fcG-↑-y-o kGfcG-↑-y-o
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-y-o-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-y-o (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-y-o

Malefactive/Instrumental
I k6f6t-xG-ö-o-m 6-k6ftG-ö-o nG-kGftG-ö-o
He k6f6t6-ö-o-m yG-k6ftG-ö-o y6-kGftG-ö-o
She k6f6t6-c(6)-ö-o-m tG-k6ftG-ö-o tG-kGftG-ö-o
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-ö-o-m tG-k6ftG-ö-o kGftG-ö-o
We k6f6t-ne-p/k-o-m nG-k6ftG-ne-p/k-o nG-kGftG-ne-p/k-o
They () k6f6t-o-p/k-o-m yG-k6ft-o-p/k-o y6-kGft-o-p/k-o
They () k6f6t-6ma-p/k-o-m yG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-o y6-kGft-6ma-p/k-o
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-p/k-o-m tG-k6ft-o-p/k-o kGft-o-p/k-o
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-p/k-o-m tG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-o kGft-6ma-p/k-o
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-p/k-o-m tG-k6fcG-↑-p/k-o kGfcG-↑-p/k-o
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-p/k-o-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/k-o (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/k-o

Benefactive
I k6f6t-xG-r-o-m 6-k6ftG-r-o nG-kGftG-r-o
He k6f6t6-r-o-m yG-k6ftG-r-o y6-kGftG-r-o
She k6f6t6-c(6)-r-o-m tG-k6ftG-r-o tG-kGftG-r-o
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-r-o-m tG-k6ftG-r-o kGftG-r-o
We k6f6t-ne-r-o-m nG-k6ftG-ne-r-o nG-kGftG-ne-r-o
They () k6f6t-o-r-o-m yG-k6ft-o-r-o y6-kGft-o-r-o
They () k6f6t-6ma-r-o-m yG-k6ft-6ma-r-o y6-kGft-6ma-r-o
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-r-o-m tG-k6ft-o-r-o kGft-o-r-o
 OBJECT CLITICS 299

You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-r-o-m tG-k6ft-6ma-r-o kGft-6ma-r-o

You ( ) k6f6t-çG-r-o-m tG-k6fcG-↑-r-o kGfcG-↑-r-o
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-r-o-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-r-o (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-r-o

7. Subject conjugations with the 3PL FEM object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
I k6f6t-xG-n-6ma-m 6-k6ftG-n-6ma nG-kGftG-n-6ma
He k6f6t6-n-6ma-m yG-k6ftG-n-6ma y6-kGftG-n-6ma
She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-n-6ma tG-kGftG-n-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-n-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-n-6ma kGftG-n-6ma
We k6f6t-n6-y-6ma-m nG-k6ftG-n6-y-6ma nG-kGftG-n6-y-6ma
They () k6f6t-o-(y)y-6ma-m yG-k6ft-o-(y)y-6ma y6-kGft-o-(y)y-6ma
They () k6f6t-6ma-y-6ma-m yG-k6ft-6ma-y-6ma y6-kGft-6ma-y-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-(y)y-6ma-m tG-k6ft-o-(y)y-6ma kGft-o-(y)y-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-y-6ma-m tG-k6ft-6ma-y-6ma kGft-6ma-y-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-y-6ma-m tG-k6fcG-↑-y-6ma kGfcG-↑-y-6ma
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-y-6ma-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-y-6ma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-y-6ma

Malefactive/Instrumental
I k6f6t-xG-ö-6ma-m 6-k6ftG-ö-6ma nG-kGftG-ö-6ma
He k6f6t6-ö-6ma-m yG-k6ftG-ö-6ma y6-kGftG-ö-6ma
She k6f6t6-c(6)-ö-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-ö-6ma tG-kGftG-ö-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-ö-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-ö-6ma kGftG-ö-6ma
We k6f6t-ne-p/k-6ma-m nG-k6ftG-ne-p/k-6ma nG-kGftG-ne-p/k-6ma
They () k6f6t-o-p/k-6ma-m yG-k6ft-o-p/k-6ma y6-kGft-o-p/k-6ma
They () k6f6t-6ma-p/k-6ma-m yG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-6ma y6-kGft-6ma-p/k-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-p/k-6ma-m tG-k6ft-o-p/k-6ma kGft-o-p/k-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-p/k-6ma-m tG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-6ma kGft-6ma-p/k-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-p/k-6ma-m tG-k6fcG-↑-p/k-6ma kGfcG-↑-p/k-6ma
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-p/k-6ma-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/k-6ma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/k-6ma

Benefactive
I k6f6t-xG-r-6ma-m 6-k6ftG-r-6ma nG-kGftG-r-6ma
He k6f6t6-r-6ma-m yG-k6ftG-r-6ma y6-kGftG-r-6ma
She k6f6t6-c(6)-r-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-r-6ma tG-kGftG-r-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-x6-r-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-r-6ma kGftG-r-6ma
We k6f6t-ne-r-6ma-m nG-k6ftG-ne-r-6ma nG-kGftG-ne-r-6ma
They () k6f6t-o-r-6ma-m yG-k6ft-o-r-6ma y6-kGft-o-r-6ma
They () k6f6t-6ma-r-6ma-m yG-k6ft-6ma-r-6ma y6-kGft-6ma-r-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-xu-r-6ma-m tG-k6ft-o-r-6ma kGft-o-r-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-r-6ma-m tG-k6ft-6ma-r-6ma kGft-6ma-r-6ma
You ( ) k6f6t-çG-r-6ma-m tG-k6fcG-↑-r-6ma kGfcG-↑-r-6ma
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-r-6ma-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-r-6ma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-r-6ma
300 SOUND MUTATIONS

8. Subject conjugations with the 2SG MASC object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
I k6f6t-k6-m 6-k6ftG-x6 nG-kGftG-x6
He k6f6t6-n-ax6-m yG-k6ftG-x6 y6-kGftG-x6
She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-ax6-m tG-k6ftG-x6 tG-kGftG-x6

We k6f6t-ne-k6-m nG-k6ftG-ne-k6 nG-kGftG-ne-k6

They () k6f6t-o-k6-m yG-k6ft-o-k6 y6-kGft-o-k6
They () k6f6t-6ma-k6-m yG-k6ft-6ma-k6 y6-kGft-6ma-k6
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-k6-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-k6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-k6

Malefactive/Instrumental
I k6f6tG-ö-k6-m 6-k6ftG-ö-x6 nG-kGftG-ö-x6
He k6f6t6-ö-x6-m yG-k6ftG-ö-x6 y6-kGftG-ö-x6
She k6f6t6-c6/G-ö-x6-m tG-k6ftG-ö-x6 tG-kGftG-ö-x6

We k6f6t-ne-ö-k6-m nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-k6 nG-kGftG-ne-ö-k6

They () k6f6t-o-ö-k6-m yG-k6ft-o-ö-k6 y6-kGft-o-ö-k6
They () k6f6t-6ma-ö-k6-m yG-k6ft-6ma-ö-k6 y6-kGft-6ma-ö-k6
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-ö-k6-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ö-k6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ö-k6

Benefactive
I k6f6tG-n-k6-m 6-k6ftG-n-x6 nG-kGftG-n-x6
He k6f6t6-n-x6-m yG-k6ftG-n-x6 y6-kGftG-n-x6
She k6f6t6-c6/G-n-x6-m tG-k6ftG-n-x6 tG-kGftG-n-x6

We k6f6t-ne-n-k6-m nG-k6ftG-ne-n-k6 nG-kGftG-ne-n-k6

They () k6f6t-o-n-k6-m yG-k6ft-o-n-k6 y6-kGft-o-n-k6
They () k6f6t-6ma-n-k6-m yG-k6ft-6ma-n-k6 y6-kGft-6ma-n-k6
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-n-k6-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-k6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-k6

9. Subject conjugations with the 2SG FEM object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
I k6f6t-kyG-m 6-k6ftG-ç nG-kGftG-ç
He k6f6t6-n-açG-m yG-k6ftG-ç y6-kGftG-ç
She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-açG-m tG-k6ftG-ç tG-kGftG-ç
We k6f6t-ne-kyG-m nG-k6ftG-ne-ky nG-kGftG-ne-ky
They () k6f6t-o-kyG-m yG-k6ft-o-ky y6-kGft-o-ky
They () k6f6t-6ma-kyG-m yG-k6ft-6ma-ky y6-kGft-6ma-ky
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-kyG-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ky (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ky

Malefactive/Instrumental
I k6f6tG-ö-kyG-m 6-k6ftG-ö-ç nG-kGftG-ö-ç
He k6f6t6-ö-çG-m yG-k6ftG-ö-ç y6-kGftG-ö-ç
She k6f6t6-c6/G-ö-çG-m tG-k6ftG-ö-ç tG-kGftG-ö-ç
We k6f6t-ne-ö-kyG-m nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-ky nG-kGftG-ne-ö-ky
They () k6f6t-o-ö-kyG-m yG-k6ft-o-ö-ky y6-kGft-o-ö-ky
 OBJECT CLITICS 301

They () k6f6t-6ma-ö-kyG-m yG-k6ft-6ma-ö-ky y6-kGft-6ma-ö-ky

Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-ö-kyG-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ö-ky (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ö-ky

Benefactive
I k6f6tG-n-kyG-m 6-k6ftG-n-ç nG-kGftG-n-ç
He k6f6t6-n-çG-m yG-k6ftG-n-ç y6-kGftG-n-ç
She k6f6t6-c6/G-n-çG-m tG-k6ftG-n-ç tG-kGftG-n-ç
We k6f6t-ne-n-kyG-m nG-k6ftG-ne-n-ky nG-kGftG-ne-n-ky
They () k6f6t-o-n-kyG-m yG-k6ft-o-n-ky y6-kGft-o-n-ky
They () k6f6t-6ma-n-kyG-m yG-k6ft-6ma-n-ky y6-kGft-6ma-n-ky
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-n-kyG-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-ky (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-ky

10. Subject conjugations with the 2PL MASC object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
I k6f6t-ku-m 6-k6ftG-xu nG-kGftG-xu
He k6f6t6-n-axu-m yG-k6ftG-xu y6-kGftG-xu
She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-axu-m tG-k6ftG-xu tG-kGftG-xu
We k6f6t-ne-ku-m nG-k6ftG-ne-ku nG-kGftG-ne-ku
They () k6f6t-o-ku-m yG-k6ft-o-ku y6-kGft-o-ku
They () k6f6t-6ma-ku-m yG-k6ft-6ma-ku y6-kGft-6ma-ku
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-ku-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ku (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ku

Malefactive/Instrumental
I k6f6tG-ö-ku-m 6-k6ftG-ö-xu nG-kGftG-ö-xu
He k6f6t6-ö-xu-m yG-k6ftG-ö-xu y6-kGftG-ö-xu
She k6f6t6-c6/G-ö-xu-m tG-k6ftG-ö-xu tG-kGftG-ö-xu
We k6f6t-ne-ö-ku-m nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-ku nG-kGftG-ne-ö-ku
They () k6f6t-o-ö-ku-m yG-k6ft-o-ö-ku y6-kGft-o-ö-ku
They () k6f6t-6ma-ö-ku-m yG-k6ft-6ma-ö-ku y6-kGft-6ma-ö-ku
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-ö-ku-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ö-ku (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ö-ku

Benefactive
I k6f6tG-n-ku-m 6-k6ftG-n-xu nG-kGftG-n-xu
He k6f6t6-n-xu-m yG-k6ftG-n-xu y6-kGftG-n-xu
She k6f6t6-c6/G-n-xu-m tG-k6ftG-n-xu tG-kGftG-n-xu
We k6f6t-ne-n-ku-m nG-k6ftG-ne-n-ku nG-kGftG-ne-n-ku
They () k6f6t-o-n-ku-m yG-k6ft-o-n-ku y6-kGft-o-n-ku
They () k6f6t-6ma-n-ku-m yG-k6ft-6ma-n-ku y6-kGft-6ma-n-ku
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-n-ku-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-ku (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-ku

11. Subject conjugations with the 2PL FEM object suffix

Perfective Imperfective Imperative/Jussive
Subjects Accusative/Dative
I k6f6t-kGma-m 6-k6ftG-xma nG-kGftG-xma
He k6f6t6-n-axma-m yG-k6ftG-xma y6-kGftG-xma
She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-axma-m tG-k6ftG-xma tG-kGftG-xma
302 SOUND MUTATIONS

We k6f6t-ne-kma-m nG-k6ftG-ne-kma nG-kGftG-ne-kma

They () k6f6t-o-kma-m yG-k6ft-o-kma y6-kGft-o-kma
They () k6f6t-6ma-kma-m yG-k6ft-6ma-kma y6-kGft-6ma-kma
Impersonal k6f w6c-↑↑-kGma-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-kma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-kma

Malefactive/Instrumental
I k6f6tG-ö-kGma-m 6-k6ftG-ö-xGma nG-kGftG-ö-xGma
He k6f6t6-ö-xGma-m yG-k6ftG-ö-xGma y6-kGftG-ö-xGma
She k6f6t6-c6/G-ö-xGma-m tG-k6ftG-ö-xGma tG-kGftG-ö-xGma
We k6f6t-ne-ö-kGma-m nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-kGma nG-kGftG-ne-ö-kGma
They () k6f6t-o-ö-kGma-m yG-k6ft-o-ö-kGma y6-kGft-o-ö-kGma
They () k6f6t-6ma-ö-kGma-m yG-k6ft-6ma-ö-kGma y6-kGft-6ma-ö-kGma
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-ö-kGma-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ö-kGma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ö-kGma

Benefactive
I k6f6tG-n-kGma-m 6-k6ftG-n-xGma nG-kGftG-n-xGma
He k6f6t6-n-xGma-m yG-k6ftG-n-xGma y6-kGftG-n-xGma
She k6f6t6-c6/G-n-xGma-m tG-k6ftG-n-xGma tG-kGftG-n-xGma
We k6f6t-ne-n-kGma-m nG-k6ftG-ne-n-kGma nG-kGftG-ne-n-kGma
They () k6f6t-o-n-kGma-m yG-k6ft-o-n-kGma y6-kGft-o-n-kGma
They () k6f6t-6ma-n-kGma-m yG-k6ft-6ma-n-kGma y6-kGft-6ma-n-kGma
Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-n-kGma-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-kGma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-kGma
 Conclusion

The data discussed in this book support the widely accepted idea that sonorants
are laryngeally unspecified. They also argue for an analysis of ejectives as
[constricted glottis], voiceless fricatives as [spread glottis] and voiced obstruents
as [voice]. It has been shown that the phoneme /ö/ is an approximant while its
allophones [b, p] are obstruents. It is argued that that the voiceless stops [p, k] are
not underlying phonemes of Chaha.
Exhaustive lists of verbs with a voiced penult were investigated in Chap-
ter 2. It is proposed that the penult is an underlying geminate in all of them. The
geminates devoice and degeminate if they are the rightmost obstruent of the root
with a laryngeal specification whereas they degeminate without being devoiced
when they are followed by an obstruent with a laryngeal specification. This is
attributed to the constraint No Final Doubly Linked [voice]. All exceptions to the
generalization (which violate No Final Doubly Linked [voice]) were discussed
and it is shown that, for the most part, they do not form a homogeneous set.
Because a labial, dorsal or coronal penult can resist devoicing, exceptions cannot
be attributed to the place of the consonant expected to devoice. But the number
of exceptions is proportionally higher in the coronal series — the only series
with a voicing contrast. It was also argued that the exceptions are not due to
borrowing. But I have demonstrated that all verbs with a doubled radical undergo
devoicing if their geminate penult contains the rightmost laryngeal specification.
When a voiced geminate penult is followed by a radical with a laryngeal
specification it degeminates without being devoiced. This generalization holds for
all such verbs, which were considered exceptional till now. This suggests that my
analysis is correct. Geminate penult devoicing has shown that sonorants (includ-
ing /ö/) and the default /t/ are laryngeally unspecified.
Compensatory devoicing supports that the penult of the verbs under
discussion is an underlying geminate. The Jussive of I-second quadriradicals and
reduplicated biradicals shows that a deleted antepenult is compensated by
devoicing the penult. In addition, such compensatory devoicing occurs only if the
304 CONCLUSION

[voice] of the penult is the rightmost laryngeal specification. The absence of

compensatory devoicing when the final radical has a laryngeal specification
follows from my analysis because the doubly linked [voice] of these forms is not
the final laryngeal specification. It also follows from the antepenult-deletion
analysis that the  violations in Ethiopian Semitic languages are only apparent.
My analysis also explains why the so-called type B verbs always have a
geminated penult. It also dispenses with the traditional classification of triradicals
into types A, B and C by analyzing types B and C as quadriradicals. Now, we
only have two verbal patterns: a short one with three C slots and a long one with
four C slots (excluding the penultimate geminates in the Perfective of short and
long patterns and Imperfective of the long pattern).
I have submitted that [x] and [k] derive from the same phoneme /x/ and
that, when singly linked, the distribution of the allophones is not determined by
whether /x/ is pre- or postvocalic but by the continuancy specification of the
radicals following /x/. If /x/ is followed by a [+] obstruent it strengthens to
[k]. Strengthening is analyzed as the delinking of [+] from /x/. Approx-
imants do not trigger delinking of [+] from a preceding /x/ and this is
attributed to the claim that [+] is the unmarked stricture value in approx-
imants so it is unspecified in them. Delinking results from either of the two
constraints No Precontinuant [x] or No Geminate [x]. In conjunction with either
of these two, No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem triggers strengthening of
an otherwise acceptable /x/. These constraints account for all instances of [x] and
[k] so appeal to pre- or postvocalic positions is unnecessary. In this respect, my
analysis of [x] and [k] is radically different from previous analyses of spirantization.
It was shown that a phonologically motivated reduplication (k6tkGt and sGkGk)
is distinct from a morphologically motivated one (t6-sxax6r) in both form and
meaning. /x/ necessarily strengthens in the first type but not in the second type.
This is attributed to the proposal that the base and reduplicant of a phonological-
ly motivated reduplication reside on the same tier while those of a morphologi-
cally motivated reduplication reside on different tiers. This distinction is also
supported by arguments related to the insertion site of vowels within the base.
Sonorant alternations are accounted for by postulating a single phoneme r
and deriving its different realizations from Geminate Nasalization, Initial
Nasalization and Penultimate Coda Nasalization. Sonorant alternations are mostly
governed by syllabic considerations (being initial, geminate or penultimate coda)
and not by the featural specification of the surrounding radicals.
The interaction of devoicing (b, d, g → p, t, k), strengthening (x → k),
nasalization (r → N), lateralization (r → l) and occlusivization (ö, U → b, bw)
is discussed. These mutations are categorized in two; the first two form a class
 CONCLUSION 305

of obstruent strengthening process and the last three form a class of sonorant
strengthening process. The two types of strengthening were compared and
contrasted. Differences between them lie in the fact that sonorant alternations
mainly affect major class features such as [sonorant] and [approximant] (these
are assumed to constitute the Root node) while obstruent alternations do not
affect major class features. They affect features such as [voice] and []
(these are assumed to be dominated by the Root and other organizing nodes),
which may observe restrictions (due to assimilatory or dissimilatory tendency)
related to the [], [voice] or Laryngeal tier whereas similar restrictions
normally do not hold for major class features such as sonorant, approximant or
vocalic. Due to this, sonorant strengthening is not conditioned by features found
below the Root node (i.e. /öö/ becomes b irrespective of the laryngeal specifica-
tion of the final radical while the latter determines its devoicing). It was shown
that sonorant strengthening takes place mainly due to double-linking of the Root
(or Place) node or at word-initial positions, and not due to assimilatory or
dissimilatory processes.
Cluster simplification in totally reduplicated verbs was also discussed and
it was argued that the markedness of the place of a consonant in question
determines whether the coda dominating it in a stem-medial cluster should be
deleted or not. The data led us to conclude that Coronal is the least and Labial
the most marked articulators. In addition, compensatory gemination resulting
from simplification was shown to support the proposed analysis of geminate
devoicing and degemination.
The impersonal labialization and palatalization in Chaha has long been a
major challenge for linguistic theories. In this book many other affixes (in
different contexts and languages) with simultaneous labialization and palatali-
zation were documented and analyzed in all cases in unprecedented detail. It was
proposed that labialization and palatalization are triggered by a unique phoneme
/U/. This proposal gives a unified account for the different contexts and languag-
es and eliminates the problem of discontinuous morphemes because both
processes are now triggered by a unique underlying phoneme /U/. In other
words, /U/ can surface as w(…)y, w, y and Ø depending on the nature of preced-
ing consonants. It was also proposed that there is no [w] vs. [u] contrast and that
there is no floating vs. nonfloating /U/.
Labialization and palatalization in Gurage are absorbing processes, i.e. the
vocoids /U, I/ trigger labialization and/or palatalization and they disappear. This
creates an enrichment of the consonant system at the expense of the frequency
of back and front vowels. That is, back and front vowels are much less frequent
than central vowels. The disproportional nature of back, central and front vowels
306 CONCLUSION

is therefore (at least partially, because central vowels are more frequent even in
languages without secondary articulation) a natural consequence of the observa-
tion that back and front vowels can turn into secondary articulation while central
vowels cannot.
It was shown that the linear order of subject suffixes is either variable (Q1)
or invariable (Q2). I have claimed that whether a suffix is variable or invariable
is not an idiosyncratic property; it is the characteristic common to the syntactic
position occupied by that suffix. It was proposed that Q1 is subject clitic while
Q2 is subject agreement, with the structures: [[[+ verb] Q1] Q2] and [[Q1 [−
verb]] Q2]. In both structures Q1 is distinct and independent from Q2 but it is
inseparable from aspect. In addition, Q1 is variable as it has a prefixal and
suffixal position depending on the aspect of the verb. But Q2 is invariable; i.e.
it has only a suffixal position. Learning the two structures and the category of
the affix will suffice for the learner to know where to place the affixes. Hence,
(s)he does not need to study the position of each affix in every aspect. In this
view, my proposal minimizes the number of items to be learnt and is desirable
from the perspective of language acquisition.
Phonological processes affecting object clitics support the Q1 vs. Q2
distinction. Q1 suffixes are followed by Light object clitics while Q2 suffixes are
followed by Heavy object clitics, regardless of similar phonemes found in both
types of suffixes. Similarly, Q1 suffixes do not block 3  labialization
whereas Q2 suffixes do block it, again regardless of the common phonemes of
the suffixes. It was further argued that an abandoned Dorsal X of Q2 vocoids
triggers gemination, velarization and palatalization. These generalizations cannot
be captured in an analysis where floating features do not include organizing
nodes and a fixed underlying site.
To summarize, this book has been mainly concerned with sound mutations
(obstruent and sonorant strengthening), floating features (the rise of secondary
articulations) and the organization of subject affixes and object clitics. All these
phenomena are intertwined. For instance, mutation in object clitics is the result
of the rise of secondary articulation. In addition, mutations of the type
[u/w/öw/bw/pw] are inseparable from the rise of secondary articulation. Whether
the 3  object triggers labialization or not is conditioned by the type of the
subject suffixes. Each of these processes has been previously treated as frag-
ments of alternations. This book put forth a number of original and unifying
analyses. Time and further research is indispensable to clarify, develop and test
the proposals but it is my contention that most of them will provide fruitful
avenue of research.
 References

Ahn, S.-C. (1998). An introduction to Korean phonology. Seoul: Hanshin.

Akinlabi, A. (1996). Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32, 239–289.
Aklilu, A. (1987). Amharic-English dictionary. Addis Ababa: Kuraz.
Alderete, J. et al. (1997). Reduplication and segmental unmarkedness.
Manuscript, Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Amberber, M. (1997). Transitivity alternation, event types and light verbs.
Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
Anderson, H. (1968). IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica
Hafniensia 11.2, 171–190.
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Angoujard, J.-P. (1988). Gémination et redoublement. Langues orientales
anciennes. Philologie et linguistique 1, 1–15.
Archangeli, D. & D. Pulleyblank. (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge: The
MIT Press.
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes.
Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Banksira, D. P. (1992). Vowel licensing. The proceedings of the 1992 annual
meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, edited by C. Dyck, J.
Ghomeshi and T. Wilson, 1–12. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in
Linguistics. (Be advised that my works from 1993–1998 appear as Petros, D.)
Banksira, D. P. (1997). The sound system of Chaha. Ph.D. dissertation, Université
du Québec à Montréal.
Banksira, D. P. (2000). Words without a lexical category. To appear in Lingua
Posnaniensis.
Bender, M. L. & H. Fulass. (1978). Amharic verb morphology: A generative
approach. East Lansing: African Studies Center.
Benua, L. (1995). Identity effects in morphological truncation. University of
Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality
308 REFERENCES

Theory, edited by J. Beckman, L.W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk, 77–136.

Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Berhane, G. (1991). Issues in the phonology and morphology of Tigrinya. Doctoral
dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal.
Beyene, T. (1973). Aspects of the verb in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation,
Georgetown University.
Beyene, T. (1980). A note on two process verbs in Amharic. Journal of
Ethiopian Studies 14, 123–130.
Bhat, D. N. S. (1978). A general study of palatalization. Universals of human
language. Vol. 2, Phonology, edited by J. H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson &
E.A. Moravcsik, 47–92. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Broselow, E. (1984). Default consonants in Amharic morphology. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 7, 15–29.
Browman, C. & L. Goldstein. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units.
Phonology 6, 201–251.
Buckley, E. (1990). Edge-in association and OCP ‘violations’ in Tigrinya. The
proceedings of the ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited
by A.L. Halpern, 75–90. Palo Alto: Stanford Linguistics Association.
Calabrese, A. (1995). A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and
simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 373–463.
Cantineau, J. (1946). Esquisse d’une phonologie de l’arabe classique. Bulletin de
la société linguistique de Paris 43, 93–140.
Chamora, B. (1997). The phonology of Inor verbs. MA Thesis, Université du
Québec à Montréal.
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle. (1968). The sound pattern of English. London: Harper
& Row.
Clements, G. N. & E. V. Hume. (1995). The internal organization of speech
sounds. The handbook of phonological theory, edited by J.A. Goldsmith,
245–306. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cohen, M. (1970). Traité de langue amharique (abyssinie). Paris: Institut
d’ethnologie.
Cole, D.T. (1955). Introduction to Tswana grammar. London.
Cole, J. (1987). Planar phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cowan, H. K. J. (1965). Grammar of the Sentani language. ‘sGravenhage.
De Jong, K. (1995). On the status of redundant features: the case of backing and
rounding in American English. Phonology and phonetic evidence: Papers in
laboratory phonology IV, edited by Connell, B. and A. Arvaniti, 68–86.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 REFERENCES 309

Demoz, A. (1964). The meaning of some derived verbal stems in Amharic.

Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Denais, M. (1990). Éléments de phonologie et de morphologie tigrigna (éthiopien
septentrional). Doctoral dissertation, Université de Nice.
Di Sciullo, A.-M. & E. Williams. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge,
Mass.: The MIT Press.
Dillmann, A. (1907). Ethiopic grammar, 2nd edition. Translated from German by
James A. Crichton. London: Williams and Norgate.
Elmedlaoui, M. (1992). Aspects des représentations phonologiques dans certaines
langues chamito-sémitiques. Thèse de Doctorat d’État, Rabat, Université
Mohammed V.
Eshun, F. B. (1993). Aspects of Akan Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Ford, C. M. (1991). Notes on the phonology and grammar of Chaha-Gurage.
Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 3, 231–296.
Frew, S. (1994). Le système verbale de l’amharique contemporain. Doctoral
dissertation, Université Paris V.
Fulass, H. (1966). Derived nominal patterns in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation,
University of California at Los Angeles.
Fulmer, L. S. (1990). Dual-position affixes in Afar: An argument for
phonologically-driven morphology. The proceedings of the ninth West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by A.L. Halpern, 189–203. Palo
Alto: Stanford Linguistics Association.
Gafos, A. (1996). The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. Doctoral
dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University.
Goldenberg, G. (1968). Kestaneñña. Studies in a Northern Gurage language of
Christians. Orientalia Suecana 17, 61–102.
Goldenberg, G. (1994). Principles of Semitic word-structure. Semitic and Cushitic
studies, edited by G. Goldenberg & S. Raz, 29–64. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Greenberg, J. (1950). The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6,
162–181.
Guerssel, M. (1977). Constraints on phonological rules. Linguistic Analysis 3,
267–307.
Guerssel, M. & J. Lowenstamm. (1995). Issues in Classical Arabic phonology and
morphology. Manuscript, Montreal, Université du Québec à Montréal and
Paris, Université de Paris VII.
Haile, A. (1987). An autosegmental approach to Amharic intonation. Doctoral
dissertation, University of London.
310 REFERENCES

Halefom, G. (1994). The syntax of functional categories: A case study of Amharic.

Doctoral dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal.
Halefom, G. & J. S. Lumsden. (1998). Subject clitics in verb conjugations of
Classical Arabic. Manuscript, Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal.
Halle, M. (1977). Tenseness, vowelshift, and the phonology of back vowels in
Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 611–625.
Halle, M. (1992). The Latvian declension. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, edited
by G. Booij & J. van Marle, 33–47. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Halle, M. (1997). Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 425–449.
Halle, M. & A. Marantz. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of
inflection. The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain
Bromberger, edited by K. Hale, & S.J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.,
The MIT Press.
Halle, M. & K. P. Mohanan. (1985). Segmental Phonology of Modern English.
Linguistic Inquiry 16, 57–116.
Halle, M. & K. N. Stevens. (1971). A note on laryngeal features. MIT quarterly
progress report 11, 198–213.
Harris, J. (1994). English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hayes, B. (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology. Language 62.2, 321–351.
Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic
Inquiry 20, 253–306.
Hayward, R. (1988). In defense of skeletal tier. Studies in African Linguistics
19.2, 131–171.
Heath, J. (1987). Ablaut and ambiguity: Phonology of a Moroccan Arabic dialect.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hendriks, P. (1989). Palatalization and labialization as morphemes in Chaha.
Manuscript, New Haven: Yale University.
Hetzron, R. (1968). Main verb-markers in Northern Gurage. Africa 38, 156–172.
Hetzron, R. (1969). Third person singular pronoun suffixes in Proto-Semitic.
Orientalia Suecana 8, 101–127.
Hetzron, R. (1971). Internal labialization in the tt-Group of Outer South-Ethiopic.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 91, 192–207.
Hetzron, R. (1972a). Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in classification. (Journal of
Semitic Studies, Monograph no. 2). Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
 REFERENCES 311

Hetzron, R. (1972b). The shape of a rule and diachrony. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 35, 451–475.
Hetzron, R. (1975). The t-converb in Western Gurage. Afroasiatic Linguistics 2.2,
39–50.
Hetzron, R. (1977). The Gunnän-Gurage languages. Napoli: Istituto Orientale di
Napoli.
Hetzron, R. (1996). The two futures in Central and Peripheral Western Gurage.
Essays on Gurage language and culture, edited by G. Hudson, 101–110.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Hetzron, R. & H. M. Marcos. (1966). Des traits pertinents superposés en
ennemor. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 4, 17–30.
Hoberman, R. D. (1988) Local and long-distance spreading in Semitic
morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.4, 541–577.
Hudson, G. (1974). The representation of non-productive alternation. Historical
linguistics II: Theory and description of phonology, edited by J.M. Anderson
& C. Jones, 203–229. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Inkelas, S. & C. Zoll. (1999). Reduplication as double stem selection. Paper
presented at Phonology 2000, Harvard and MIT, April 30.
Itô, J. & A. Mester. (1986). The phonology of voicing in Japanese. Linguistic
Inquiry 17, 49–73.
Itô, J., A. Mester & J. Padgett. (1995). Licensing and underspecification in
Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 571–613.
Johnson, D. C. (1975). Phonological channels in Chaha. Afroasiatic Linguistics
2.2, 25–37.
Kaye, J. & J. Lowenstamm. (1984). De la syllabicité. Forme sonore du langage,
edited by F. Dell, D. Hirst & J.-R. Vergnaud, 123–159. Paris: Hermann.
Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm & J.-R. Vergnaud. (1985). The internal structure of
phonological representations: A theory of charm and government.
Phonology Yearbook 2, 303–326.
Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm & J.-R. Vergnaud. (1990). Constituent structure and
government in phonology. Phonology 7.2, 193–231.
Kenstowicz, M. (1982). Gemination and spirantization in Tigrinya. Studies in the
Linguistic Science 12, 103–122.
Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kenstowicz, M. (1995). Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternative to
cyclicity. Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, edited by J.
Durand & B. Laks, 363–393. Stanford: University of Stanford Publications.
Kenstowicz, M. & D. P. Banksira. (1999). Reduplicative identity in Chaha.
Linguistic Inquiry 30.47, 573–585.
312 REFERENCES

Kenstowicz, M. & C. Kisseberth. (1979). Generative phonology: Description and

theory. New York: Academic Press.
Keyser, S.J. & K. N. Stevens. (1994). Feature geometry and the vocal tract.
Phonology 11, 207–236.
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology
Yearbook 2, 85–138.
Ladefoged, P. & I. Maddieson. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Leslau, W. (1941). Documents tigrigna (éthiopien septentrional): grammaire et
textes. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Leslau, W. (1948). Le problème de la gémination du verbe tchaha. Word 4,
42–47. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 493–498).
Leslau, W. (1950). Ethiopic documents: Gurage. New York: The Viking Fund.
Leslau, W. (1956). Études descriptive et comparative du gafat (éthiopien
méridional). Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Leslau, W. (1957). Une hypothèse sur la forme primitive du type B en
amharique. Word 13, 479–488.
Leslau, W. (1964). The jussive in Chaha. Language 40, 53–57. (Reproduced in
Leslau 1992, 425–429).
Leslau, W. (1967). The impersonal in Chaha. To honor Roman Jakobson. Essays
on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 1150–1162. The Hague: Mouton.
(Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 430–443).
Leslau, W. (1976). The triradicals of the Gurage dialect of Endegeň. Israel
Oriental Studies 6, 138–154. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 430–443).
Leslau, W. (1978). Spirantization in the Ethiopian languages. Atti del secondo
congresso internazionale di linguistica camito-semitica, Firenze, 16–19 aprile
1974. (Instituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali. Università di Firenze)
176–199. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 608–631).
Leslau, W. (1979). Etymological dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic), 3 volumes.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Leslau, W. (1985). The liquid l in Hadiyya and in West Gurage. Mélanges
linguistiques offerts à Maxime Rodinson. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner, 231–238. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 356–363).
Leslau, W. (1992). Gurage studies: Collected articles. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Leslau, W. (1995). Reference grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
Verlag.
 REFERENCES 313

Lieber, R. (1988). Configurational and nonconfigurational morphology.

Morphology and modularity, edited by M. Everaert et al., 187–215.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic
theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lochak, D. (1960). Basque phonemics. Anthropological Linguistics 2.3, 12–31.
Lombardi, L. (1991). Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Lombardi, L. (1995). Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 39–74.
Lorimer, D. L. R. (1935). The Burushaski language. Vol. 1, Introduction and
grammar. Oslo: H. Aschehoug.
Lowenstamm, J. (1986). À propos d’une hypothèse sur la forme primitive du
type B en amharique. Revue québécoise de linguistique 16, 157–180.
Lowenstamm, J. (1991a). Vocalic length and centralization in two branches of
Semitic. Semitic studies in honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his 85th
birthday. Vol. 2, edited by A.S. Kaye, 949–965. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Lowenstamm, J. (1991b). The verbs of Chaha. Paper presented at Montreal-
Ottawa-Toronto Phonology Conference, Montreal, February.
Lowenstamm, J. (1996a). CV as the only possible syllable type. Current trends
in phonology. Vol. 2, edited by J. Durand & B. Laks, 419–441. Salford:
European Studies Research Institute.
Lowenstamm, J. (1996b). Five puzzling Chaha verbs: An exercise in practical
morphophonemics. Essays on Gurage language and culture, edited by G.
Hudson, 123–132. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Lowenstamm, J. & J. Kaye. (1986). Compensatory Lengthening in Tiberian
Hebrew. Studies in compensatory lengthening, edited by L. wetzels & E.
Sezer, 97–132. Dordrecht: Foris.
Lowenstamm, J. & S. A. El M’hammedi. (1996). On the correctness of the
biliteral analysis of mediae geminatae verbs. Langues orientales anciennes.
Philologie et linguistique 5, 127–132.
Lowenstamm, J. & J.-F. Prunet. (1986). Le tigrinya et le principe du contour
obligatoire. Revue québécoise de linguistique 16.1, 181–208.
Lumsden, J. S. (1987). Syntactic features: Parametric variation in the history of
English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lumsden, J. S. (1992). Underspecification in grammatical and natural gender.
Linguistic Inquiry 23.3, 469–486.
314 REFERENCES

Lumsden, J. S. & G. Halefom. (1999). A minimal theory of inflection. Manuscript,

Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal.
Manahlot, D. (1977). Nominal clauses in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation,
Georgetown University.
Marcos, H. M. (1974). Palatalization in Ennemor. Proceedings of IV Congresso
Internazionale di Studi Etiopici, Tomo II. Accademia Nazionale dei lincei,
251–265.
Martinet, A. (1981). Fricatives and spirants. Suniti Chatterji Commemoration
29.10, 145–151.
McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology.
Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373–418.
McCarthy, J. J. (1983). Consonantal morphology in the Chaha verb. The
proceedings of the second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
edited by M. Balow, D. Flickinger & M. Wescoat, 176–188. Palo Alto:
Stanford Linguistics Association.
McCarthy, J. J. (1986a). Lexical phonology and nonconcatenative morphology in
the history of Chaha. Revue québécoise de linguistique 16.1, 209–228.
McCarthy, J. J. (1986b). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic
Inquiry 17, 207–263.
McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency. Phonetica 43, 84–108.
McCarthy, J. J. (1994). The phonology and phonetics of Semitic pharyngeals.
Phonological structure and phonetic form: Papers from laboratory
phonology. Vol. 3, edited by P. Keating, 191–234. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, J. J. & A. Prince. (1993). Prosodic morphology I: Constraint
interaction and satisfaction. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts and
Rutgers University.
McCarthy, J. J. & A. Prince. (1995). Prosodic morphology. The handbook of
phonological theory, edited by J. Goldsmith, 318–366. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miller, W. R. (1967). Uto-Aztecan cognate sets. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Mullen, D. S. (1986). Issues in the morphology and phonology of Amharic: The
lexical generation of pronominal clitics. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Ottawa.
Noyer, R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological
structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
 REFERENCES 315

O’Leary, D.L. (1923). Comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. London:

Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. LTD. (Reprinted in 1969, Amsterdam:
Philo Press)
Odden, D. (1994). Adjacency parameters in phonology. Language 70.2, 289–330.
Ohala, J. J. & C. J. Riordan. (1979). Passive vocal tract enlargement during
voiced stops. Speech communication papers presented at the 97th meeting of
the Acoustical Society of America, edited by J. J. Wolf & D. H. Klatt, 78–88.
Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Paradis, C. (1992). Lexical phonology and morphology: The nominal classes in
Fula. New York: Garland Publishing.
Paradis, C. (1993). Ill-formedness in the dictionary: A source of constraint
violation. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38.2, 215–234.
Perkell, J. S. M. L. Matthies, M. A. Svirsky and M. I. Jordan. (1993). Trading
Relations between tongue-body raising and lip rounding in production of the
vowell /u/: A pilot “motor equivalence” study. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 93, 2948–2961.
Petros, D. (1993a). La dérivation verbale en chaha. MA Thesis, Université du
Québec à Montréal.
Petros, D. (1993b). Sur la formation du verbe dans les langues sémitiques. The
proceedings of the 1993 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic
Association, 477–492. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.
Petros, D. (1994). On Prefix-necessitating roots. New trends in Ethiopian studies,
Papers of the 12th international conference of Ethiopian studies. Vol. 1,
edited by H. G. Marcus, 1220–1236. Lawrenceville: The Red Sea Press.
Petros, D. (1995). The role of gemination on continuancy and voicing. The
proceedings of the 1995 conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association,
edited by P. Koskinen, 423–434. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.
Petros, D. (1996a). On the absence of Agr-S: Evidence from Ethiopian Semitic
languages. Configurations: Essays on structure and interpretation, edited by
A.-M. Di Sciullo, 129–160. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Petros, D. (1996b). Sonorant alternations in Chaha. Essays on Gurage language
and culture, edited by G. Hudson, 153–173. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
Verlag.
Piggott, G. (1992). Variability and feature dependency: The case of nasality.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 33–78.
Polotsky, J. H. (1938). Études de grammaire gouragué. Bulletin de la Société de
linguistique de Paris 34.2, 137–175. (Reproduced in Polotsky 1971,
477–515)
316 REFERENCES

Polotsky, J. H. (1951). Notes on Gurage grammar. Jerusalem: Israel Oriental

Society. (Reproduced in Polotsky 1971, 519–573).
Polotsky, J. H. (1971). Collected papers. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
Press, J. I. (1986). Aspects of the Phonology of the Slavonic Languages: The Vowel
y and the Consonantal Correlation of Palatalization. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in
generative grammar. Manuscript, Rutgers University and University of
Colorado.
Prunet, J.-F. (1990). The origin and interpretation of French loans in Carrier.
International Journal of African Linguistics 56.4, 484–502.
Prunet, J.-F. (1992). Spreading and locality domains in phonology. New York:
Garland Publishing.
Prunet, J.-F. (1996a). Some core properties of Semitic morphology: Evidence
from the far South. Current trends in phonology. Vol. 2, edited by J. Durand
and B. Laks, 617–652. Salford: European Studies Research Institute.
Prunet, J.-F. (1996b). Guttural Vowels. Essays on Gurage language and culture,
edited by G. Hudson, 175–203. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Prunet, J.-F & D. Petros. (1996). L’interaction entre schèmes et racines en chaha.
Studies in Afroasiatic grammar, edited by J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm & U.
Shlonsky, 302–336. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Raz, S. (1983). Tigre grammar and texts. Afroasiatic Dialects 4, 1–148.
Rice, K. (1992). On deriving sonority: A structural account of sonority
relationship. Phonology 9, 61–99.
Rice, K. (1994). Peripheral in consonants. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics
39, 191–216.
Rose, S. (1992). De la palatalisation en chaha. MA Thesis, Université du Québec
à Montréal.
Rose, S. (1994a). Palatalization, underspecification, and plane conflation in
Chaha. The proceedings of the twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, edited by E. Duncan, D. Farkas & P. Spaelti, 101–116.
Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Rose, S. (1994b). The historical development of secondary articulation in
Gurage. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 20, special session on
historical issues in African linguistics.
Rose, S. (1995). Ethio-Semitic inflectional affix order: A phonological solution.
Langues orientales anciennes. Philologie et linguistique 5–6, 259–291.
Rose, S. (1996). Allomorphy and morphological categories in Muher. Essays on
Gurage language and culture, edited by G. Hudson, 205–227. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag.
 REFERENCES 317

Rose, S. (1997). Theoretical issues in comparative Ethio-Semitc phonology and

morphology. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
Rubach, J. (1996). Nonsyllabic analysis of voice assimilation in Polish.
Linguistic Inquiry 27, 69–110.
Sagey, E. (1990). The representation of features in non-linear phonology: The
articulator node hierarchy. New York: Garland Publishing.
Schein, B. (1981). Spirantization in Tigrinya. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
3, 32–41
Schein, B. & D. Steriade. (1986). On geminates. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 691–744.
Scobbie, J. M. (1991). Attribute value phonology. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Edinburgh.
Steriade, D. (1995). Underspecification and markedness. The handbook of
phonological theory, edited by J. A. Goldsmith, 114–174. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stevens, K. N. S. J. Keyser and H. Kawasaki. (1986). Toward a phonetic and
phonological Theory of redundant features. Invariance and variability in
speech processes, edited by Perkell, J. S. and D. H. Klatt, 426–449.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tsujimura, T (1996). An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.:
Blackwell.
Ullendorff, E. (1955). The Semitic languages of Ethiopia: A comparative
phonology. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press.
Vaux, B. (1998). The laryngeal specification of fricatives. Linguistic Inquiry,
29.3, 497–511.
Voigt, R. (1988). Labialization and the so-called sibilant anomaly in Tigrinya.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 60.3, 525–536.
Voigt, R. (1990). The gemination of the present-imperfect forms in Old Ethiopic.
Journal of Semitic Studies, 35.1, 1–18.
Yimam, B. (1994). yamarG\\a s6wasGw [Amharic grammar]. Addis Ababa,
Educational Materials Production and Distribution Agency (EMPDA).
Yip, M. (1988). Templatic morphology and the direction of association. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 551–577.
Yip, M. (1991). Coronals, clusters, and the coda condition. Phonetics and
phonology: The special status of coronals, internal and external evidence,
edited by C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet, 61–78. San Diego: Academic Press.
Zoll, C. C. (1996). Parsing below the segment in a constraint based framework.
Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
 Name Index

A D
Ahn, S. C., 128 De Jong, K., 190
Akinlabi, A., 190, 283 Demoz, A., 88
Aklilu, A., 86 Denais, M., 97, 229
Alderete, J. et al, 176 Di Sciullo, A.-M., 186
Amberber, M., 88 Dillmann, A., 89, 194, 195, 198, 200,
Anderson, H., 211, 212 243
Anderson, S. R., xxx
Angoujard, J.-P., 64, 173 E
Archangeli, D., 239 Elmedlaoui, M., 221
Eshun, F. B., 212
B
Banksira, D. P., see also Petros, D., F
29, 75, 116, 131, 141, 148 Ford, C. M., 9, 24, 128, 241, 262, 263
Bender, M. L., 245 Frew, S., 245
Benua, L., 138 Fulass, H., 245
Berhane, G., 218, 223, 226, 227, 228, Fulmer, L. S., 245
229, 243
Beyene, T., 40, 84, 188, 223 G
Bhat, D. N. S., 211, 236 Gafos, A., 64, 113, 173
Broselow, E., 55, 88 Goldenberg, G., 44, 54, 261, 262, 263,
Browman, C., 175 290
Goldstein, L., 175
C Greenberg, J., 5
Calabrese, A., 11, 76 Guerssel, M., 97, 129
Cantineau, J., 5
Chamora, B., 35, 58, 84, 127, 128, H
155 Halefom, G., 241, 242, 243, 245, 253
Chomsky, N., 6, 164, 211, 212 Halle, M., 4, 6, 164, 212, 243, 245
Clements, G. N., 171, 175 Harris, J., 6
Cohen, M., 21 Hayes, B., 89
Cole, D. T., 212 Hayward, R., 17, 127, 133
Cowan, H. K. J., 211 Heath, J., 78
320 NAME INDEX

Hendriks, P., 239 Lorimer, D. L. R., 212

Hetzron, R., 4, 5, 15, 20, 44, 54, 58, Lowenstamm, J., 2, 24, 33, 58, 61, 86,
100, 125, 134, 147, 198, 199, 89, 97, 129, 134, 146, 150, 185,
202, 209, 210, 215, 227, 234, 199, 277, 278, 279
237, 238, 241, 243, 250, 261, Lumsden, J., 245, 248
162, 163, 164, 265, 274, 278,
283, 287, 290, 291 M
Hudson, G., 58 Maddieson, I., 6, 21, 163, 164, 171
Hume, E. V., 171, 175 Marcos, H. M., 134, 198, 199, 215,
278
I Martinet, A., 4
Inkelas, S., 38 Matthies, L., 190
Itô, J., 12, 76 McCarthy, J. J., 4, 11, 42, 43, 44, 54,
61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72,
J 93, 99, 112, 114, 125, 133, 143,
Johnson, D. C., 16, 189, 239 171, 173, 175, 189, 209, 238,
Jordan, M. I., 190 239, 283
Mester, A., 12, 76
K Miller, W. R., 211
Kawasaki, H., 190 Mohanan, K. P., 212
Kaye, J., 89, 185 Mullen, D. S., 267
Kenstowicz, M., 78, 91, 97, 111, 138,
164 N
Keyser, 175, 190 Noyer, R., 245
Kiparsky, S. J., 76
Kisseberth, C., 78 O
Odden, D., 117, 143
L Ohala, J. J., 78
Ladefoged, 6, 21, 163, 164, 171
Leslau, W., xxvi, xxx, 4, 5, 8, 9, 21, P
23, 25, 42, 43, 44, 53, 54, 58, Padgett, J., 12, 76
66, 75, 86, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, Paradis, C., 55, 99, 164
100, 101, 103, 106, 108, 115, Perkell, J. S. M., 190
121, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, Petros, D., see also Banksira, D. P., 2,
133, 142, 146, 151, 189, 194, 4, 6, 12, 18, 19, 22, 24, 29, 33,
197, 200, 207, 209, 214, 217, 34, 35, 36, 47, 58, 61, 71, 72,
221, 229, 231, 233, 234, 237, 84, 93, 95, 100, 115, 125, 128,
239, 241, 243, 249, 253, 262, 131, 134, 136, 137, 138, 146,
263 155, 168, 226, 238, 239, 242,
Lieber, xxx, 189, 207, 209 243
Lochak, D., 211 Piggott, G., 175
Lombardi, L., 4, 76, 78
 NAME INDEX 321

Polotsky, J. H., 5, 22, 89, 100, 125, Smolensky, P., 99

129, 146, 217, 234, 237, 238, Steriade, D., 11, 76, 171
243, 249, 261, 262, 263, 271, Stevens, K. N. S., 4, 175, 190
282, 284, 290, 291 Svirsky, M. A., 190
Press, J. I., 212
Prince, A., 11, 99, 114, 133 T
Prunet, J.-F., 2, 19, 24, 29, 33, 55, 58, Tsujimura, T., 212
61, 70, 84, 97, 100, 106, 108,
115, 128, 134, 136, 143, 146, U
155, 181, 197, 225 Ullendorff, E., 231, 232

R V
Raz, S., 200, 218, 229, 243 Vaux, B., 4
Rice, K., 175 Vergnaud, J.-R., 568
Riordan, C. J., 78 Voigt, R., 84, 212, 229, 230, 231, 232
Rose, S., 2, 25, 58, 64, 113, 128, 134,
146, 147, 173, 187, 189, 191, W
192, 200, 207, 210, 211, 213, Williams, E., 186
253, 278
Rubach, J., 76, 78 Y
Yimam, Baye 245
S Yip, m., 38, 178, 180
Sagey, E., 146, 188
Schein, B., 97, 171 Z
Scobbie, J. M., 64, 97 Zoll, C. C., 38, 189, 215
 Subject Index
A base-reduplicant — identity, internal
/A/ as, see also vocoids /I,U,A/
fricative and sonorant 12, 100,
104–105, 105n, 108
front vowel 22–23, 107
radical 8
consonant 24
Amharic xxvii, 8, 14, 21, 40, 42,
48–51, 54, 59–61, 83–90
articulators
markedness xxix, 175, 180–183
dual dependency of Dorsal xxix,
176
hierarchical organization of
175–176
interaction with cluster
simplification 176–183
aspect
specifications of xxxi, 32, 43,
244–247, 268
interactions with tense and mood
250–255
assimilation of, see also fusion of /N/
and /r/
laryngeal features 8–9, 12–14
N to a following consonant 127n,
167–170
B labial-lingual clusters 177–178
/ö/ as a sonorant (specifically
approximant) 2, 11–12, 15–21,
39
structure 111, 113–114, 122
blocking of
devoicing 43–45, 54, 63–64, 67, 74
3  labialization 262n,
283–287
borrowing, see also exceptions to
geminate devoicing
and degemination without devoicing
44, 54, 81–83
and epenthesis 109
and exceptional strengthening of /x/
104–105
and nasalization 109
interaction with PCN 145
ejectivization, voicing or
spirantization of voiceless stops
10–11
C
classification of Ethiopian Semitic
languages xxvii
cluster simplification — in totally
reduplicated verbs
clusters having /r/ as one member
181–182
coronal-peripheral clusters 178–179
dorsal-anterior clusters 179–180
summary of 180
compensatory, see also cluster
simplification, depalatalization
324 SUBJECT INDEX
devoicing in Chaha 56–61, 63–64,
66–74, 83–88, 176–183
gemination in Amharic type B
verbs 84–88
gemination in Amharic
C1VC1C1VC2 verbs 88–90
lengthening, lack of 218
strengthening (of /x/ to [k]) 104
complementary nature of, see also
minimal pairs, distribution of
/r/ and /I/ 277–279
clitics and the vocoids /I,U,A/ of Q1
suffixes 257
conjugation forms (= stem types)
basic 32–35
expanded by affixation: a-stem,
at-stem and t6-stem 35–37
expanded by reduplication 37–39
conjugation of √kft ‘open’ 294–302
consonant clusters, see also epenthesis
initial, medial and final 17–18,
25–26, 126–127
underlying vs. surface 25–26
consonant enrichment xxix–xxx,
236–237
consonants of Chaha, see also
continuancy specification,
laryngeal specification
alveopalatals 2
b, p and k as lacking from UR 2,
6–7
bilabials 2, 7, 12–21
classifications of continuant
consonants 20
continuant obstruents (= fricatives
and the spirant x) 2, 4–6
coronal sonorants 2, 12, 21–22
lenis segments as underlying 4
lingual stops 4, 6–11
palatalized velars as palatals 7–8
underlying and phonetic inventory
xxvii, 1–4, 39–40
with secondary articulation as
biphonemic 2–4, 136
consonants-vowel asymmetry xxx
constraints
No Different Allophones of /x/ in a
Stem xxviii, 111, 113–116, 122,
123
No Doubly Linked Final [voice]
xxviii, 76–80
No Geminate [x] xxviii, 116, 122
No Precontinuant [x] xxviii, 96, 99,
105–107, 109, 111–119,
121–123, 172–173
continuancy specification, see also
redundancy rules,
underspecification
approximants and obstruent stops as
[ ] 2, 15, 118–119
ö as approximant and obstruent 120
fricatives and /A/ as [+] 117
nasals as [−] 119
Coronal Palatalization 192–193,
210–214, 236
D
decomposition, see also labialization
and palatalization, 188–193, 207,
216, 218–219, 228, 229n, 233,
236–237
degemination, see also devoicing and
degemination
as a synchronic process 32–33
without devoicing
as an exception, see exceptions
to geminate devoicing
as the elsewhere rule 44, 45,
51–54, 62–66, 68–73, 76–79,
81–83, 177–180
previous explanations 43–44, 54,
63–67, 74, 80–83
structural description of 44–45,
54, 76–79, 81
 SUBJECT INDEX
delabialization of -xw to -x 242, 255,
257
deleted radicals — interactions with
G-epenthesis and assimilation
25–26
deletion of /U/ 217–218
denasalization 143n, 282n
depalatalization, see also cluster
simplification, compensatory,
56–63, 71, 104, 222
devoicing and degemination, see also
degemination, occlusivization of
geminates
and being the right most obstruent
of a morpheme 44–45
and preceding phonemes 45
as final devoicing 78
devoicing being optional 51, 60,
81–82
diachronic vs. synchronic 43–44
for compensatory reason, see also
compensatory, 56–61, 176–183
in affixes 45, 74–75
in m6k6r type and n6:6d type verbs
41
in nouns and adjectives 74
in the Imperfective 41–42
in the Jussive and Perfective of
I-second quadriradicals 56–61
in verbs with a doubled radical
61–74
lack of 75–76
structural description of 44–45, 54,
76–79, 81
devoicing of sonorants vs. obstruents
14
discontinuous morphemes 189, 190,
235
dissimilation, OCP-triggered
and adjacency 143
in continuancy 96
in nasality 142–144
Distributed Morphology xxxi, 244
325
distribution of, see also
complementary nature of,
consonants of Chaha, minimal
pairs
ö, b and p 7, 12–21
coronal sonorants in prefixes 21,
154–157
phonemes as a final radical 53
phonemes in affixes 11–12
r and front vowel 20, 145–150,
225–226
r, l and n xxix, 21–22, 126–131,
152–157
stops 6–10
x and k xxviii–xxix, 4, 6, 91–123
Dorsal Fusion 271–272, 278–279
Dorsal or Labial Suppression 275
Dorsal Palatalization 192, 210, 212
doubling
copy vs. (long-distance) geminate
110, 113, 116, 172–173
morphologically motivated vs.
phonologically motivated
114–115
E
edge-in association 38, 72
elsewhere realization of /x/ 102–105,
109
Endegeň xxvii, 42, 108
epenthesis, see also deleted radicals
initial [G] 154–157, 168
insertion sites of [G] 25–29, 133,
134
interaction of [G] with geminates
27n, 29, 154–157, 188
interaction of [G] with  131–134
of [G] to replace a deleted segment
29, 188, 199, 205, 218, 236–237
of [m] to break hiatus 248n
of [n] by analogy 264–265
of [t] 10, 85–86
of glides to break hiatus 30–31
326 SUBJECT INDEX
etymological reconstruction of
assimilated stops 9
/A/ 22, 95
k 108
x 92
exceptional, see also phonetic
geminates
deletion of /U/ 217–218
devoicing in n6:6d-type 53
lack of penult gemination in
Perfective 52n
nonfloating /U/ in
fat’ur-a 203
mot 20
-u 234
-w6t 218–219
strengthening of /x/ 104, 105, 109
exceptions to geminate devoicing
borrowing as explanation, 44, 54,
81–83
in A-final verbs 49–50
in general 46, 60, 81–83
in I-second quadriradicals 59
in obstruent-final verbs, apparently
54
in r-final verbs 47–48
in verbs with a doubled radical 65
in verbs with a final bilabial 51
in verbs with a final high vocoid
50–51
exceptions to the strengthening of /x/
97, 98, 101, 103, 105–108, 110,
112, 115n
Eža xxvii, 42–43, 44n, 57, 151
F x and k 103n
feature-changing rule 14, 63–65, 80,
93, 96
feature-filling rule 14, 63–65, 80
features (phonological)
major class vs. others xxix, 171
marked vs. unmarked xxviii, 4, 17
monovalent/single-valued features 4,
23, 143, 159
[nasal] as the only non-major class
feature needed to contrast
bilabials 15–16
final doubling
and the sonorant nature of C2 in
C1VC2C3VC3 18–19
interaction with  139–140
involving /x/ 112–113
involving a voiced radical 61–64
floating, see also decomposition,
exceptional nonfloating /U/ in,
and linear order of affixes xxx
leftward direction of 190, 194, 196,
202, 205, 208, 219
versus nonfloating /U/ 218–219,
233–235
focus suffix 12n
free variation of, see also metathesis,
labialization — optional
6 and a as a vowel of reduplicant
38
ö, p and k, see also velarization,
56–58, 75, 262n, 274–275, 291
-c6 and -c 257
C1VC2C1VC2 and C1VC1VC2 73
fna, a-w6na and a-na 219–220
VCCGCV and VCGCCV 27
voiced and voiceless due to optional
devoicing 51, 60, 81–82
w and ö 148
w and y in Tigre, exceptionally
229n
w and y in Tigrinya 229
y6- and ø- in the impersonal 254
Š and j in Amharic 87
French object agreements vs. clitics,
see also object clitics, 266–267
frequency of front, central and back
vowels xxix-xxx
frequentative, see medial doubling
 SUBJECT INDEX
fricatives vs. spirant 4–6
fusion of /N/ and /r/ 163, 165–166
G compensatory, 88–90
Geäez xxvii, 8n, 42, 84, 89, 194,
198–200, 217, 227, 234n, 243n
Geminate Inalterability
as an explanation for degemination
without devoicing 43, 63–67, 74,
80
enforcing initial epenthesis of [G]
156
gemination, see also compensatory,
devoicing and degemination
as common to all Perfective verbs,
but see exceptional lack of,
42–46, 48–49, 56–61, 66–71,
115–116
as strengthening 161–165
as compensation 56–61, 63–64,
66–74, 83–88, 128, 150, 176–183
in Imperfective 41–42, 127–128,
149
in type B verbs of Amharic 83–88
grammatical (vs. natural) gender 241,
246
Gurage xxvii, 8, 20, 24, 43, 53, 54,
84, 108, 145, 153, 200, 209, 228,
228, 232
H 190–192, 194, 213
habitual 37, 98, 105, 220
hiatus, see also vocoids — fusion of,
30–31, 233, 245, 258
I summary of examples 235
impersonal, see also labialization and
palatalization — interactions, 71,
189, 206–210, 212–213, 215,
219, 226, 232, 235, 238, 245,
251, 254, 255, 269, 270, 277
feature specification 246, 248
previous analyses 207, 209
327
initial doubling
involving a voiced radical 71–74
in Amharic, see also ,
Inor xxvii, 100, 106, 108, 155, 232
infinitives 198–199
masculine plural, see also
spreading, 20, 209–210,
214–215, 231
instrumental 213, 216, 237, 262
intervocalic [b] as a simplified
geminate 7–9, 15–16, 19
L
labialization and palatalization —
simultaneous, see also Inor,
Muher, Tigrinya
distance between target and trigger
192
entailment among the two processes
185–189, 203, 206, 213, 223,
226, 235
in adjectival/nominal participles
195–196
in nouns 193–195
in verbal participles 186–188
interactions among the two
processes 206–210, 236
intervening segments (between
targets and the trigger = /U/)
involving reduplicated targets
196–198, 205
nonrightmost and stem-internal
targets 200–206
targets and the trigger (= /U/)
190–194, 196, 198, 200–201,
203–206, 208–211, 213–215,
219, 221–223, 225–227,
230–231, 236
labialization
previous factual errors 237–239
328 SUBJECT INDEX
optional (for a reduplicated
consonant) 197–198
labialization without palatalization
as an exception 194–195
in the 3SG MASC object 213,
283–287
in adjectival/nominal participles
203–204
laryngeal contrast in stops 8
laryngeal specification, see also
assimilation, redundancy rules,
underspecification
and borrowed voiceless stops 10–11
being unlicensed in prefixes 11–12
ejectives as [constricted glottis] 4, 8
sonorants, derived stops and t as [ ]
2, 9, 12–15, 23
voiced obstruents as [voice] 4, 8
voiceless fricatives as [spread
glottis] 4
lateralization, see also strengthening,
153–154, 163–165
light-heavy alternation, see also
subject-object interactions
apparent absence of 287–289
as -n and -ø 282–283
as -n and -y 276–279
as presence or absence of
labialization, see blocking of the
3SG MASC labialization
as simplex vs. geminate 270–273
as velarization 274–275
comparison of previous and present
hypothesis 290–293
in the first singular clitics 280–282
summary of 289–290
linear order of affixes, see also
floating, variable and invariable
subject affixes
and floating affixes xxx-xxxi
and variable affixes xxxi
local-movement verbs 19, 154–155
M
medial doubling
as total copying 38
interactions with PCN 138
interactions with U-initial roots
217–218
involving /x/ 113–115
involving a voiced radical 64–66
metathesis (optional) 140, 181
minimal pairs involving, see also
distribution of
x and k 94, 105–107
r and n 21, 150–152
Muher xxvii, 42, 107, 151
masculine plural suffix 233–235
3  object suffix 213–214
N
nasalization of, see also fusion of /N/
and /r/, penultimate coda
nasalization
geminate /rr/ and degemination
126–128, 147, 159–163, 172–173
geminate /rr/ vs. PCN 143–144, 151
initial /r/ 128–129, 137–138,
159–161
post-N /r/ 165–166
/r/ to [«r ] in Inor 20
neutralization 21, 39, 94, 96, 107
nonalternating n 150, 154–157
O
object clitics, see also light-heavy
alternation
ambiguity (accusative-dative,
malfactive-instrumental) 263
clitic vs. agreement, see also French
object agreements vs. clitics,
266–268
three sets of Case markers and
following object pronouns
262–266
 SUBJECT INDEX
priority between direct and indirect
objects, 256n, 261
Obligatory contour Principle (),
see also cluster simplification,
depalatalization, dissimilation,
46, 51, 68, 71, 73, 83, 86, 89,
91, 97, 109, 142, 143, 157, 271
apparent violation (i.e.
C1VC2C1VC2 → C1VC1C1VC2)
in Amharic 88–90
in Chaha
in Imperative, Perfective and
Imperfective 71–73, 88–90, 110
only in the Imperative 68–69,
176–183
as an asymmetrical restriction 109
interaction with  142–145
triggering fusion 271–272
occlusivization of
geminate /ö/ 14, 16, 159–162, 172
initial /ö/ 159–161
post-N /ö/ 19–20, 130–131,
166–168
post-N /U/ 19–20, 22, 168–170
Optimality Theory 99n, 143
output-output correspondence
enforcing PCN 138, 140, 141
overapplication, see also exceptional,
111
overgeneration and undergeneration 93
P the OCP 142–145
participles and auxiliaries 188
palatalization, see also Coronal /
Dorsal / Vowel Palatalization
22, 23, 34, 37, 75, 85, 87, 88,
106, 147, 149, 176, 185–218,
221- 227, 230, 232–235, 242,
249, 274, 277, 280, 284, 289,
295
2SG FEM 187, 191, 192, 235, 244,
247, 249, 250, 269, 274, 280,
295
329
2SG FEM vs. impersonal 208–210,
236
its absorbing nature in Chaha 86
of an alveolar as tongue raising
211–212
of r by a root-final /U/ 225–226
of the prefix t- 217n
of a velar as tongue fronting
211–212
only in the phonology 147–149
optional nature of absorption in
Amharic 86
representation of palatalized
segments in Amharic and in
Chaha 85
triggered by high back vocoids in
different languages 211–212
triggered by U in Tigrinya, see also
Tigrinya, 227–233
two different lists of targets (for
two different triggers) 210–212
penultimate coda nasalization (PCN)
129–131, 151–152
exceptional application 139–140
exceptions 132, 136–137
interaction with
complex consonants 135–137
doubling/reduplication 137–142
epenthetic vowel 131–134
radical /A/ 134–135
suffixes 130, 137
triggering strengthening of a
following /ö/ 130–31
perfective pattern
in Amharic, Chaha and Geäez 42
of A-final verbs 49
with and without underlying
gemination 42–43, 60, 69–70
Peripheral Fusion, see also
velarization, free variation,
273–275
330 SUBJECT INDEX
placelessness of nasal prefixes and
nasalized /r/ 125–157, 167–170
phonetic geminates
across morpheme boundaries
153–154, 163–166
stem-internally
involving /x/ 116
involving a voiced radical 75
involving participles 188
word-initially
phonological relatedness among
affixes 249, 264
post-N obstruents 170
Q cluster simplification 176–183
Q1 and Q2, see also variable and
invariable subject affixes
as two distinct heads 243–245
aspect and the linear order of
243–245
grammatical feature specifications
of 245–250
Q1 as two disjunctive sets 250
Q1 prefixes (= aspect and subject) —
alternations of
6- vs. N- 251–252
t- vs. ø- 252–253
y- vs. y6- 253–254
y- vs. y6-/ø- 254–255
R spirantization 10, 92–95, 96n, 100
r as a (central) approximant, contexts
22, 131
Radical Underspecification 23
raising
a to 6 in the imperfective stem
34–35, 136n
in impersonal vs. 3SG MASC
object 212–213
o to u and 6 to G/ø 257–258
readjustment, see also delabialization,
raising, subject-object
interactions 255–258
redundant suffixes 243
redundancy rules, see also
underspecification of
[round] → [+back] 191
[+] → [+] 23
[+] → [voice] 23
[−] → [−] 23
[−] → [stiff vocal cords] 23
reduplication, total, see also final /
initial / medial doubling
and labialization in participles
196–198, 205
in verb stems 37–39
interactions with
geminate devoicing 66–71
labialization and palatalization
 140–142
strengthening of /x/ 110–112
reduplication types: total / final /
medial or frequentative 37–39
root structure constraint 5, 18, 91, 96
rule ordering 64, 78–79, 209–210, 258
S
secondary articulation, see
decomposition
second singular feminine subject
palatalization, see palatalization
sonority scale 17–18, 26
spreading 13, 164–170, 214–215
strengthening of
approximant vs. obstruent xxix,
159–160, 171–173
/ö/ to [b] in initial position, see also
occlusivization, 160
/ö/ to [b] or [p], see also devoicing
and degemination, degemination
without devoicing,
occlusivization of geminates,
161–162
 SUBJECT INDEX
/ö/ to [b] to preserve base-
reduplicant identity 178n
/r/ to [n] in initial position, see also
nasalization, 128–129, 160–161
/r/ to N before CVC#, see also
PCN, 129–131
/r-r/ to [ll], see also lateralization,
163–165
/rr/ to [n], see also nasalization of
geminate and degemination,
126–128, 162–163
post-N /ö,r,U/, see also
occlusivization/nasalization,
165–170
strengthening of /x/ to [k]
and the role of
infixal -a- 105–107
postvocalic and intervocalic
positions xxviii, 93
preceding vs. following trigger
109, 121
segments intervening between x
and fricative/A 101, 111, 117,
119
domain of application as level of
radicals 105–106
due to gemination 5–6, 115–116
in I-second quadriradicals 104
in x-A configuration 99–101
in x-fricative configuration 6, 97–99
to preserve base-reduplicant identity
5–6, 19, 110–115
stress 24
subject-object interactions, see also
light-heavy alternations
clitics following stem-final vs.
Q2-final vocoids 292–293
clitics following the first plural
subject 291
clitics following the second vs. third
singular feminine suffixes
291–292
331
previous and present hypotheses
290–291
superlative 218
syllable structure 23–24
T
t as
default consonant 2, 4, 9–10, 55
epenthesis 9–10, 85–86
lacking laryngeal features 9–10,
79–80
t-deletion 27n
templates
the need for 114
of intransitive vs. transitive
triradicals 32
tier conflation 41, 63–64, versus
copying 172–173
third singular masculine object, see
labialization without
palatalization
Tigrinya — decomposition of /U/ in,
see also free variation of w and
y, xxvii
words with both labialization and
palatalization 229–231
numerals 231–233
U-final verbs 229
U-medial verbs 227–228
triple linking, see Geminate
Inalterability
true geminates vs. fake geminates 45
U
U, see also floating, decomposition,
labialization and palatalization
floating vs. deleted 217–218
in I-second quadriradicals 221–222
in prefixes 216–217
in root-final position 222–227
in root-initial position 217–218
in root-medial position 220–222
332 SUBJECT INDEX
in verbs beginning with a round
vowel 219–220
triggering palatalization without
labialization 226–227
underspecification of, see also
redundancy rules
[+] in continuant sonorants
96–99, 118–120
[−] in obstruent stops 96–99,
117–118
[voice] in sonorants 76–78
[voice/stiff vocal folds] in /t/ 79–80
unmarked / phonologically inactive
features 1–2
V voiced penults when the final radical
variable (= Q1) and invariable (= Q2)
subject affixes xxxi, 242–244
velarization, see also free variation,
274–275
verb classification
previous classifications 41–46,
69–70, 100
quadriradicals and types A, B,
and C of triradicals 32–35
short (type A) vs. long
(quadriradicals including types B
and C) 32–35, 84, 135–136, 222,
224–226, 228
vocalization of N 15, 27n, 130, 170
vocoids /I,U,A/
and a preceding /x/ 97, 99–101,
104–105, 107
fusion of, see also hiatus, 3, 22,
30–31
glides and high vowels 3, 22–23,
30–31
representations of 269–270
their phonetic realization in stems
33–35
with and without the Root node —
‘weak’ glides 70–71, 224
vocoid-second quadriradicals (or type
B verbs) of Amharic 83–88
is
/r/ 46–48
/A/ 48–50
/U/ or /I/ 50–51
a bilabial 51
an obstruent other than /t/ 51–54
/t/ 55–56
vowel impoverishment xxix, 236–237
Vowel Palatalization 192, 211
exceptional application of 202n
W
w/u as öw 15, 20