Untitled

50 The phonological nature of the beginning of the wordIn (7b) the consonant cluster, i.e. [dr], fulfils the conditions required tohold IG and so the relation is contracted. This means that the nucleusoccurring in the domain of IG is locked, i.e., it does not require an externalgovernor. The first vowel of the stem, that is, [a], can now properlygovern the prefix final vowel, and the latter remains disassociated andhence phonetically inaudible. At first sight, the situation may appearproblematic as we need to postulate two different representations whichdescribe phonetically the same cluster. Note, however, that in (7a) thecluster is separated by a lexically present vowel which prohibits the consonantsfrom interacting in the IG relation. In (7b), on the other hand,the nucleus is lexically empty and so the relation can be contracted. Laterin the chapter it will be demonstrated that this is not always thecase, and that what is a locked nucleus in one form can be unlocked ina related one.How does the solution discussed above compare with the previousaccounts? In the past it has been claimed that the difference between theforms in (6a, b) arises due to a different bracketing of prefixed verbs(Rubach 1984, Szpyra 1989, Rowicka 1999c). Thus, forms likethose in (6a) are said to form one phonological word, i.e. the prefix isattached synthetically, e.g. [odeprat¡‚]. On the other hand, the examplesin (6b) represent analytic prefixation, that is, they form two separatedomains, e.g. [roz][drapat¡‚]. In the Strict CV model it is possible to analysethe same cases without resorting to analytic bracketing. All thathas to be said is that #TR clusters must contract the IG relation unlessthere is an intervening lexically present vowel. In the former case, thatis, when the #TR cluster contracts the IG relation, the prefixal vowel issuppressed (7b). In the situation when the #TR cluster is separated withthe lexically present vowel which is properly governed (7a), the prefixvowel is vocalised.Finally, let us discuss similar cases in a closely related language,Czech. It will be demonstrated that in Czech, just like in Polish, twoseparate structures must be assigned to phonetically the same cluster,which schematically may be represented as TR.Scheer (1996, 1997, 1999a) in discussing Czech data points outthat consonant final prefixes such as podP- ‘under’ and odP- ‘away’ aresometimes realised with the prefix-final vocalised nucleus. The vowelappears only if the following root begins with at least two consonants, e.g.ode-brat ‘take away pf.’ vs. od-birat ‘id. ipf.’. Moreover, similarly to whatwe have witnessed in Polish, phonetically the same clusters bring aboutcontrasting results. Compare the Czech forms odebrat ‘take away’ andbezbrady ‘beardless’ with the Polish forms zebraæ ‘take, pf.’ and zbryzgaæ