Dissertation - Michael Becker

three listed possessive forms. Since two of the listed possessives are in the high-rankingclone, and one is in the low-ranking clone, the speaker is twice as likely to derive the novelroot using the high-ranking clone, i.e. the effect of the grammar in (168) is stochastic whenderiving a possessive form of a novel root. Deriving the dative form of the same novel rootwould be categorical, with a single listing of a dative on the low-ranking clone.The effect of the grammar in (168) is not necessarily categorical with a new combinationof known morphemes. If the speaker wished to derive the dative form of anaÙ, theywill find two matches for the root anaÙ in the low-ranking clone of *VÙV, and one matchfor the dative in the same low-ranking clone. So the dative form of anaÙ is guaranteed to bederived using the low-ranking clone. The dative form of amaÙ, however, presents a conflict:There are two listings for the root amaÙ with the high-ranking clone, and one listing for thedative with the low-ranking clone. The speaker will have to weigh both factors in makingtheir decision. It is not necessarily the case that roots and affixes have the same weight indetermining the outcome of the grammar, since for any given combination of root and affix,it is likely that there will be many more listings for the affix than for the root, but it is notclear that in real languages, the affix generally prevails in such cases. The current proposallimits itself to pointing out that a grammar like the one in (168) can potentially generate astochastic outcome given a new combination of two known morphemes.A separate question about the application of a grammar with cloned constraints has todo with the scope of the clone over a phonological form that has multiple morphemes in it.The final voiceless stop of the root avuÙ, for instance, becomes voiced in the possessive, butit surfaces faithfully in the accusative (164, 168). This root can combine with both affixes tomake the form avuÃ-u-nu ‘fist.POSS.ACC’, 7 with the possessive followed by the accusative7 The morphological affiliation of the n that appears between the affixes is unclear. An n appears inTurkish whenever a third person possessive suffix is followed by a case suffix. Since this n also appearsbefore consonant-initial case suffixes, it is not there to repair a hiatus.176