I am working on the blow Finnish data. As far as I understand there are 3 alternatives:

1) K -> 0 ( in "fault" group)

2) kk-> k (in "firplace" and "dot" group)

3) k-> k ( in "sledgehammer")

The Nominatives are the basic form of the noun. -n is a Genetive marker, -lla is an adessive marker, -ni means "my", -a is a partitive marker , and -ko is a question particle.

In Fireplace group, we have Tukka as the nominative, which I think its syllabus boundary is Tuk.ka, when we add -n(genitive marker) the second syllabus become closed then we have Consonant gradation. -lla is the adessive marker, can we say the syllabification for takalla is ta.kal.la and because we have closed syllabus then we have degemination? or we cannot separate the adessive marker? Can we say the syllabification for takkaa is tak.kaa and because we have open syllabus we have gemination? Also Tak.kaa.ko?

Can we say that "sledgehammer" group is the Resistance cluster?

How about "fault" group, can we have the same strategy that we had for "fireplace" group? vi.ka( open syllabus) vi.an( closed syllabus then consonant gradation) vi.al.la, vi.al.la.ni, vi.kaa( open syllabus)vi.kaa.ko.

Can we have the abstract analysis for this?

Here is my dataFinnish data

  • Your thoughts about syllable boundaries and their effect on gradation are correct. Not sure what you mean by "resistance cluster", but leka seems to be idiosyncratically disobeying the usual rules.
    – TKR
    Apr 23, 2016 at 22:52
  • Thanks. By "resistant cluster" I mean that this resist to obey the rules and changes.How should I write the abstract analysis of this data? I got the concept but I have problems with writing rules.
    – liza
    Apr 23, 2016 at 23:01
  • 1
    That depends on the specific theoretical and notational framework you want to use.
    – TKR
    Apr 23, 2016 at 23:09


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.