[lo kaze aj-aj-aj]. Haplology in Modern Hebrew plural marking

[lo kaze aj-aj-aj]: haplology in

Modern Hebrew plural marking

Noam Faust

Université Paris 8, CNRS SFL

ISMo, Lille, décembre 2017

[lo kaze aj-aj-aj]

not such/so ajajaj

1) « Not so good »

2) « Not such a sequence of [aj]’s!! »

Faust, Haplology in Modern Hebrew Plurals ISMo, Lille, décembre 2017

Nominal Inflection

« Ideal », one-to-one relation gender = exponent;

number = exponent


Modern Hebrew: less ideal



1) Not the same plural for M and F




2) Different Free State and Construct State plurals for M,

but not for F




2) Different Free State and Construct State plurals for M,

but not for F

This will be formalized in this talk


Modern Hebrew: Two unnoticed asymmetries

First asymmetry: Only in feminine nouns, plural is marked twice

on possessed nouns, on both possessed and possessor

*[sus-at-ej-xem], *[sus-ot-xem]



Second asymmetry: new dual formation with -aim selects

singular base of masculine nous, plural of feminine nouns

*[sus-at-aim]

(paradigm of ‘horse’)



Second asymmetry: new dual formation with -aim selects



The two asymmetries will be

accounted for in this talk

*[sus-at-aim]


Basic issues

[gen] /at/ (Bat El 1989)


Basic issues

[plural] /im/ / __]PhonW

[plural] /ej/


Basic issues


[plural] /ej/

This rule will also be useful for sus-ej-xem

‘your(pl) horses’.


Basic issues

[plural, gen] /ot/


Basic issues

[plural, gen] /ot/


[plural] /ej/

[gen] /at/

Portmanteau,

will take

precedence

over more

specific rules.

In the sense of Svenonius (2016)


…To illustrate

HORSE+gen+pl]Pw => sus-ot, *sus-at-im

HORSE+gen+pl+WOOD] Pw => sus-ot eʦ,

*sus-at-ej eʦ

[plural, gen] /ot/


[plural] /ej/

[gen] /at/


…To illustrate

HORSE+gen+pl]Pw => sus-ot, *sus-at-im

HORSE+gen+pl+WOOD]Pw => sus-ot eʦ,

*sus-at-ej

[plural, gen] /ot/


[plural] /ej/

[gen] /at/

The first task –

formalizing the basic

facts – is

accomplished.


Back to the unnoticed asymmetries

First asymmetry: Only in feminine nouns, plural is marked twice

on possessed nouns, on both possessed and possessor

*[sus-at-ej-xem], *[sus-ot-xem]


Possessive marking



• One has the urge to analyze -ej- identically for both CS nouns with plural heads and possessed plurals:

sus-ej eʦ ‘wooden horses’

sus-ej xem ‘your(pl) horses’

• The key is to overcome this urge and go for


sus-ø ej-xem ‘your(pl) horses’



• One has the urge to analyze -ej- identically for both CS nouns with plural heads and possessed plurals:


sus-ej xem ‘your(pl) horses’




-ej- in -ej-xem is part of the suffix, not the base.


Possessive marking




-ej- is -ej-xem is part of the suffix, not the base.


Possessive marking

• If -ej- is not the realization of the plural feature on the base, the double marking of the feminine sus-ot-ej-xem is unsurprising: both the feature on the base and the feature of the suffix are realized:

HORSE+gen+pl – pl+POSS.2MPL

sus ot – ej xem

This is agreement between the possessed and the

possessor


Possessive marking in Nuer

For possessive markers to show agreement in

number is not so strange. Here is an example

from Nuer (my own field work)


Possessive marking

• But the question is now turned on its head: why does the masculine not show overt marking on the possessed??

HORSE+gen+pl – pl+POSS.2MPL

sus ot – ej xem

HORSE+pl – pl+POSS.2MPL

sus ø – ej xem


Possessive marking

…Because if it did, we’d predict


sus ej – ej xem

(recall [plural] /ej/)


Haplology in Possessive marking

…Because if it did, we’d predict


sus ej – ej xem

(recall [plural] /ej/)


[lo kaze aj-aj-aj]

not such/so ajajaj


2) « Not such a sequence of [aj]’s!! »


[lo kaze aj-aj-aj]

not such/so ajajaj


2) « Not such a sequence of [ej]’s!! »


Haplology

Morphological Obligatory Contour Principle:

avoid adjacent similar markers (Survey in Nevins 2012).

bus’s [bʌs-ɪz]

vs. parents’ [pærənt-s], *[pærənt-s-ɪz].

Haplology: a common repair to this problem, the omission of one of the two similar exponents.

/sus-ej-ej-xem/ => /sus-ej-ej-xem/


Haplology

Morphological Obligatory Contour Principle:

avoid adjacent similar markers (Survey in Nevins 2012).

bus’s [bʌs-ɪz]

vs. parents’ [pærənt-s], *[pærənt-s-ɪz].

Haplology: a common repair to this problem, namely haplology, the omission of one of the two similar exponents.

/sus-ej-ej-xem/ => /sus-ej-ej-xem/

Corroborating this, Bat EL (2009): words ending in the

suffix sequence -ij-ut, such as medin-ij-ut ‘policy’, are

expected to be pluralized as ??medin-ij-uj-ot. However,

speakers prefer to find other ways to pluralize such

words.


OK, but why

For all this to work, the possessive suffix has to

agree with the base. But why would it?

Goldenberg (1995): possessive inflection in

Semitic involves co-indexation

sus-i ‘my horse’ = susi-Xi-i,

(X = a silent pronoun)

= horse+(one) of me


OK, but why

I try to adapt this for Distributed Morphology:


To second unnoticed asymmetry

Second asymmetry: new dual formation with –aim selects


*[sus-at-aim]



New duals

Second asymmetry: new dual formation with –aim selects


*[sus-at-aim]

Ritter (1995): Working on old duals, proposes (for the

compositional among them) that [aim] = /ajdual+impl/.

The decompotion is adopted here.



New Duals

• If /aj/ is there, then the asymmetry above can also be understood if the base for the dual is in fact always plural.

HORSE+gen+pl – dual+pl

sus ot – aj im

HORSE+pl – dual+pl

sus ej – aj im


New Duals

• If /aj/ is there, then the asymmetry above can also be understood if the base for the dual is in fact always plural.


sus ot – aj im


sus ej – aj im

Morphological OCP violation!


New Duals

• The question then becomes: why does the dual select for a plural base?


sus ot – aj im


sus ej – aj im



New duals

Two other important facts about duals

1) there is never dual agreement, and

2) the gender of the base is kept.

/ot


New duals

Two other important facts about duals

1) there is never dual agreement, and

2) the gender of the base is kept.

/ot

A suffix that does not determine gender is not likely to

be the head of its structure.


New duals-proposal

The suffix /-aj/ is a pluralia tantum modifier noun:

e.g. sushead-ej eʦmod

horse wood ‘wooden horses’

sushead-ej ajmod-im

horse couple ‘a couple of horses’

joʔaʦhead-ej nisuʔmod-im

counselor marriage ‘marriage counselor’


New duals-proposal

The suffix /-aj/ is a pluralia tantum modifier noun:


horse-pl wood ‘wooden horses’

sushead-ej ajmod-im

horse-pl couple ‘a couple of horses’


counselor-pl marriage ‘marriage counselors’


New duals-proposal

The suffix /-aj/ is a pluralia tantum modifying noun:



sushead-ej ajmod-im




This explains why -aj-im never affects the gender of the

noun. It is simply not the head. Modifiers never trigger

agreement.


New duals-proposal

The suffix /-aj/ is a pluralia tantum modifying noun:



sushead-ej ajmod-im




This explains why -aj-im never affects the gender of the

noun. It is simply not the head. Modifiers never trigger

agreement.

It also explains why there is never dual agreement : dual

is simply not a feature of MH, it is a meaning of -aj.


New duals-proposal

This explains -im. We still haven’t answered the

question why does the dual select for a plural

base?



sushead-ej ajmod-im





New duals-proposal

This explains -im. We still haven’t answered the question why does the dual select for a plural base?



sushead-ej ajmod-im





New duals-proposal

This explains -im. We still haven’t answered the question why does the dual select for a plural base? It’s a semantic effect!



sushead-ej ajmod-im

horse-pl couple *‘a couple of horse’




New Duals-proposal

• The analogy between new duals and N+poss explains 1) lack of dual agreement; 2) transparency for agreement; and 3) asymmetry.


sus ot – aj im


sus ej – aj im



New duals-proposal

In the terms of Distributed Morphology:


Conclusion

A first look at Modern Hebrew pluralization patterns reveals several asymmetries

- Different Free State exponence for M and F

- F nouns: FS=CS, but M FS≠CS

- N+possessive: double exponence only in F.

- New duals: double exponence only in F.


Conclusion

By formalizing the first two asymmetries in terms of

realization rules and protmanteaux, I have shown

that the second two are epiphenomenal.

- Different Free State exponence for M and F

- F nouns: FS=CS, but M FS≠CS

- N+possessive: double exponence only in F.

- New duals: double exponence only in F.


Conclusion

▪ In fact, both N+possessive and new dual

structures require double exponence regardless

of gender, but in M nouns, this leads to an OCP

violation and a haplological repair.


Conclusion

▪ The data may initially give the impression that

Morphology can do whatever it wants, like

selecting the singular in M and the plural in F.

But as we saw, that impression is wrong (in this

case).


Conclusion

▪ The data may initially give the impression that

Morphology can do whatever it wants, like

selecting the singular in M and the plural in F.

But as we saw, that impression is wrong (in this

case).

THANK YOU!


[lo kaze aj-aj-aj]. Haplology in Modern Hebrew plural marking

Documents

Transcript of [lo kaze aj-aj-aj]. Haplology in Modern Hebrew plural marking