Dissertation - Michael Becker

adult form is actually at-1, they will form the winner-loser pair at-1 ≻ ad-1, which directlyconflicts with tad-1 ≻ tat-1, as shown in (179).(179)*VtVIDENT(voice)a. tad-1 ≻ tat-1 W Lb. at-1 ≻ ad-1 L WAt this point, inconsistency is detected, and *VtV is cloned. The resulting grammar is*VtV tat ≫ IDENT(voice) ≫ *VtV at . From this point on, the learner is actually jugglingtwo conflicting grammars, not just one, since there are two grammatical ways for *VtV tobe ranked relative to IDENT(voice). If the learner encounters a new t-final noun, such askat ‘floor’, with the possessive form kat-1, they will need to decide whether kat belongs tothe grammar *VtV ≫ IDENT(voice) or to the grammar IDENT(voice) ≫ *VtV, or in otherwords, which clone of *VtV should list the new item.To find out, the leaner can simply try both grammars by temporarily listing kat witheach clone of *VtV. The temporary listing will yield two different results: The observedadult form kat-1 is produced by the lower clone of *VtV, and the ungrammatical *kad-1is produced by the higher clone. Since the two grammars yielded different results, one ofthem being the adult form, the learner can pair the adult form with the other form, and addthem as a new winner-loser pair to their Support. Running the Cloning RCD again yieldsthe new grammar *VtV tat ≫ IDENT(voice) ≫ *VtV {at, kat} , where kat is permanently listedwith the lower-ranking clone of *VtV.Trying out both grammars also helps with weeding out words that aren’t affected by*VtV, such as the l-final y1l ‘year’. A temporary listing of y1l with either clone of *VtVgenerates y1l-1 as the possessive form, which is identical to the adult possessive form. Sinceboth grammars agree on the winner, the learner can conclude that the ranking of *VtV is187