Dissertation - Michael Becker

(96)Sem MASC + {im MASC , ot FEM } *´σ/HIGH φ-MATCH LOCAL(o)a. Sem-ím *!b. ☞ Sem-ót *This use of *´σ/HIGH, which attributes the selection of –ot to marked structure thathappens to appear in the suffix –im, makes no reference to the phonological shape of theroot. This is in line with the rest of the analysis, which assumes that any vowel other than[o] is inert with respect to plural allomorph selection.In principle, the selection of –ot with nouns that don’t have [o] in them could be donewith a purely arbitrary diacritic, with no phonological substance at all. In the analysisproposed in (96) above, however, it is hard to see why the learner would fail to notice thepreference that *´σ/HIGH makes, if this constraint is indeed universal and available to thelearner “for free”.I leave open the possibility that in some cases, learners are left with no phonologicalmechanism for making the right choice in allomorph selection, and they are forced tosimply list the exceptional affix-takers.Suppose that a constraint such as *´σ/HIGH isunavailable to the speaker for some reason, making the observed form Sem-ót harmonicallybounded, as in (97).(97)Sem MASC + {im MASC , ot FEM } φ-MATCH LOCAL(o)a. Sem-ímb. ☹ Sem-ót *!98