2010 for an overview) centralize some vowels while retaining others. Some dialects (e.g., Francavilla in Sinni, or various dialects of Puglia and Campania: Loporcaro 1988 De Blasi 2006) centralize all final vowels. With respect to this phenomenon, variation mostly concerns which final vowels are involved in the weakening process. fīlium/ii/am/ae, ‘son/s, daughter/s’), except for Felitto, where they were generally maintained. In the dialects of group (4b), final unstressed vowels were centralized as -ə 32 (e.g., fiʎʎə, 33 it. plural distinctions, through the re-analysis of stressed vowel alternations originally induced by metaphony ( Tagliavini 1972, p. In turn, in some dialects, alternative strategies were developed to overtly mark singular vs. By contrast, in the dialects where final vowels were dropped or became indistinct, the overt realization of number alternations on suffixes was blurred as well: in some such dialects, these phenomena affected almost all noun classes in others, the weakening process affected only some final vowels: therefore, number alternations were retained on some suffixes and became lost in others. 547–48), collapse class/gender and number information. In the dialects where final vowels were not lost/weakened, number alternations are realized on suffixes, which, like in Italian ( Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. By contrast, we focus on the effect of the loss/weakening of final vowels ( Tagliavini 1972) on the realization of “syncretic” suffixes. Since none of the dialects considered in this paper exhibit - s suffixes, this phenomenon will not be further explored here. For example, there are dialects, such as Ladin or certain Friulian varieties, where “syncretic” suffixes of the Italian type alternate with the combination (see, among others, Manzini et al. In the Romance dialects of Italy, number marking on nouns is realized through various strategies (for a detailed survey, see Manzini and Savoia 2005, vol. By contrast, in French, where morphological number exponence on nouns is generally absent, 2 bare arguments are ungrammatical: argument nominal structures, including indefinite mass and plural nouns, require a visible “quantification operator” in D, as shown in (1). 157): a silent “plural quantifier” is licensed when the affix raises to D at LF, “providing the correct quantificational representation” ( Delfitto and Schroten 1991, p. 1 They propose that, in English, the licensing of argument bare nouns depends on the realization of number alternations through overt affixes “attached to a ‘free’ morpheme” ( Delfitto and Schroten 1991, p. The relation between the morphological representation of the feature Number on nouns and the possibility for nouns to be realized as bare (i.e., not introduced by any overt determiner) in argument position was explored by Delfitto and Schroten ( 1991).
0 kommentar(er)
