Untitled

56 The phonological nature of the beginning of the wordexact at the vocalisation of the prefix vowel. The discussion in mostcases was restricted to verbal stems in the class of Derived Imperfective.The conclusion which we have arrived at, however, is less than satisfactory,since #TR and #m + R sequences behave inconsistently in this respect.To sum up, what seems to be phonetically identical clusters, e.g.[tr], [mn], may have two different representations. The situation in (14a)is responsible for the suppression of the prefix vowel, while the one in(14b) produces vocalisation of the same nuclear position. Therefore, whatcalls for explanation is the justification of two distinct representationsof the phonetically identical cluster in the grammar. Our immediateresponse would be that the regular case is the IG relation (14a). In otherwords, we claim that IG must be contracted whenever the requiredconditions are met. Furthermore, it is claimed that the consonantal relationcannot hold in a situation when the consonants are separated byan alternating vowel. Since alternating vowels are lexically present(Scheer 2004), the consonants flanking such a vowel are not able tocommunicate. In the latter situation the alternating vowel is properlygoverned and in consequence the prefix vowel vocalises. The situation,however, is more complex than it might seem at first sight. Note thatthere are a few cases where the cluster is not allowed to contract IGdespite the fact that it is not separated by an alternating vowel, e.g. odemnie ‘from me’. Building on Cyran’s (2003) proposal 9 , we claim thatsuch forms must be morphologically marked, that is, they are marked asnot being able to contract the IG relation and hence must be separatedby a properly governed nucleus (14b). Needless to say, initial clusterswhich are not allowed to contract the IG relation because of the theoryinternalreasons do not need to be marked, e.g. #TT or #RT sequences.The empty nucleus between such clusters is motivated phonologically.To further complicate matters, it must be noted that there exist formswhich indicate a regular vowel-zero alternation, e.g. gra — gier ‘play,nom.sg./gen.pl.’, but nevertheless behave inconsistently in that they caneither suppress the prefixal vowel or vocalise it, e.g. zgraæ ‘synchronise’,rozegraæ ‘play out’ respectively. From the above discussion it follows thatthe latter form is the regular case. The initial cluster [gr] in gra is brokenup by the alternating vowel in the related form, i.e. [g‘er], whichmeans that when preceded by a prefix the vowel in this prefix will vocalise,which is borne out by the form rozegraæ (15b). If it is true that al-9In Cyran’s (2003) account the regular cases are the stems which cause the suppressionof the prefixal vowel. The remaining ones, i.e. those holding vowel-zero alternationsand those which are never broken up by an alternating vowel, must be morphologicallymarked.