stem olvas 'read' ül 'sit' mond 'say'
1 sg. olvas-ok ül-ök mond-ok
2 sg. olvas-ol ül-sz mond-asz
3 sg. olvas ül mond
1 pl. olvas-unk ül-ünk mond-unk
2 pl. olvas-tok ül-tök mond-otok
3 pl. olvas-nak ül-nek mond-anak
('s' = [s], 'sz' = [s])
Carstairs assumes that these three verbs belong to the same macroparadigm,
since the variation is fully predictable. First, stems with back vowels
(olvas, mond) select back vowel suffixes (-ok,
-unk), while verb stems with front vowels select front vowels. This
variation is due to a rule of vowel harmony. Second, if a consonant cluster of
three members arises this is split up by an epenthetic vowel. Third, in the 2 sg.
form a stem ending in a °sibilant takes the
suffix -ol/-el, while other stems take -sz (or a variant).
Major category
SYNTAX: the categories N, V, and A and their projections.
LIT.
Chomsky (1965,
1973).
Mapping Principle
SYNTAX: principle proposed in
Marantz (1984) to relate independently
constructed levels of representation to each other. In Marantz' model there are
three levels of syntactic representation, logico-semantic structure (l-s-structure),
syntactic structure (s-structure), and surface structure, together with a lexicon
whose lexical entries contain information about argument structure, transitivity,
semantic roles etc. The Mapping Principle guarantees that crucial aspects of
structure, specifically those relating to grammatical relations, are automatically
preserved from one level to the next.
MORPHOLOGY: principle proposed by
Sproat (1985)
to relate the phono-morphological and the syntactico-semantic level of
representation of complex words to each other. He basically proposes the
Mapping Principle to account for the so-called
°bracketing paradoxes.
EXAMPLE: A standard example of a bracketing paradox is
ungrammaticality. The phono-morphological representation of this form
will include the information that un- is an unstressed prefix, and that
-ity is a suffix which attracts stress to the previous syllable. The
syntactico-semantic representation will include the information that un-
selects adjectives and means 'NOT', and that -ity creates abstract nouns
from adjectives. Furthermore, at the phono-morphological level hierarchical
structure plays a relatively small role. Instead, strict adjacency tends to be
much more relevant. On the other hand, at the syntactico-semantic level,
linear order seems to be of little importance. Here, hierarchical structure
or sisterhood between morphemes is crucial. At the syntactico-semantic level
the representations of ungrammaticality in (i) are equivalent, since
linear order is irrelevant. At the phono-morphological level the representations
of ungrammaticality in (ii) are also equivalent, since hierarchical
structure is irrelevant at this level of representation:
(i) [[UN [GRAMMATICAL]A ]A ITY]N <=> [ITY [UN [GRAMMATICAL]A ]A ]N <=> [[GRAMMATICAL]A UN]A ITY]N <=> [ITY [[GRAMMATICAL]A UN]A ]N (ii) [[un [grammatical]] ity] <=> [un [[grammatical] ity]]Sproat defines his Mapping Principle in such a way that [[un [grammatical]] ity] can be rebracketed as [un [[grammatical] ity]], since morphological principles such as level ordering demand it.
Mass noun
SEMANTICS: a noun which refers to something without clear boundaries
or individual members, like milk and gold. Also called mass
term. In English, mass nouns cannot be pluralized (cf. *milks) and
cannot be used with the indefinite article (cf. *a milk) or with
numerals (cf. *one milk). Mass nouns like cattle and
furniture are sometimes called collective nouns because they refer
to a collection of individuals, but not to any one individual. The opposite
of a mass noun is called a °count noun.
Material equivalence
°Equivalence.
Material implication
°Implication.
MAX(A)
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) the least full-category maximal projection
dominating A.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Maximal onset principle
PHONOLOGY: a principle determining underlying
°syllable division. It states that
intervocalic °consonants are maximally
assigned to the °onsets of syllables in
conformity with universal and language-specific conditions (see also
°sonority hierarchy).
EXAMPLE: the English word diploma can be divided in several
ways: dip.lo.ma vs. di.plo.ma. However, the only division
that is in conformity with the maximal onset principle is di.plo.ma.
LIT.
Kahn (1976),
Selkirk (1981).
Meaning
°Extension and
°Intension,
°Denotation and
°Connotation,
°Meaning theories.
Meaning postulate
SEMANTICS: a device used in
°logical semantics to stipulate
semantic relations between lexical items. Meaning postulates were introduced
in Carnap (1947)
in order to account for the fact that a sentence like (i) is an
°analytic truth, true in every
°model. The meaning postulate in (ii) captures
this analyticity:
(i) Bachelors are unmarried (ii) For all x, if x is a bachelor, then x is unmarriedMeaning postulates can be seen as an alternative for °decomposition of word meaning. They are extensively used in °Montague Grammar.
Meaning theories
SEMANTICS: different views about the nature of meaning and the proper
formulation of a semantic theory.
There are roughly three theories about meaning: (i) the denotational theory,
(ii) the conceptualist theory, (iii) the pragmatic theory.
(i) The denotational theory characterizes the meaning of an expression in
terms of the notions °reference and
°truth. The meaning of a sentence can be
described by specifying when it is true, the meaning of other expressions
can be described by specifying the entity or entities it refers to. Thus,
the correspondence between language and the world is taken to be the crucial
element of meaning (hence the name correspondence theory of meaning). The
denotational theory is typical of
°logical semantics which is
°truth-conditional and
°model-theoretic
(Montague (1970), Gamut 1991).
(ii) The conceptualist theory identifies the meaning of an expression with
the concepts or ideas associated with the expression, i.e. with a mental
representation of the content of that expression, often making use of
°decomposition of meaning. The
semantic work which has been done within generative grammar is usually based
on a conceptualist theory:
°Katz-Fodor-semantics,
°Generative Semantics, and
°Conceptual Structure
(Jackendoff 1983).
(iii) the pragmatic theory identifies the meaning of an expression with the
use that is made of it by participants in an interaction. This theory is often
named the meaning-is-use theory after Wittgenstein (1953). It is characteristic
for those theories in which °speech acts
play a central role, following Austin (1962). The three approaches need not be
incompatible, because they all deal with different aspects of meaning (see
Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet 1990).
LIT.
Austin (1962),
Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet
(1990),
Gamut (1991),
Jackendoff (1983),
Montague (1974),
Wittgenstein (1953).
Meaning-is-use-theory
°Meaning theories.
Melody tier
PHONOLOGY: the part of a phonological representation which encodes the
segmental contents of a specific phonological unit.
EXAMPLE: in moraic theory long vowels are often considered to be
identical to their short counterparts as far as their segmental contents is
concerned. Therefore they are represented identically at the melody tier but
have different moraic content. See °mora.
Mentalistic theory
°Meaning theories.
Meta language
SEMANTICS: the language that is used to talk about (expressions of)
another language, the object language. Object language and meta language
can be the same, e. g. ordinary English, but they always differ in function. If we
cannot detect any meta language in a sentence, there is no object language
either. The distinction was introduced to avoid the
°liar's paradox.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Meta-variable
SEMANTICS: an expression of a °meta
language, that can be used to refer to arbitrary object language expressions
in a logical language.
EXAMPLE: the syntax definition of a
°predicate logic could contain
sentence (i).
(i) If phi is a formula in L, then so is Neg phiIn (i), phi is a metavariable standing for any formula of the logical language L.
Metrical phonology
PHONOLOGY: a cover term which refers to several non-linear theories
of stress. The non-linear theory of the representation of stress as introduced
by Liberman (1975) and
Liberman & Prince (1977)
is a direct reaction to the linear analysis of stress proposed within the Sound
Pattern-framework developed by
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
in which stress is considered a property of individual segments
(i.e. °vowels). In metrical phonology
stress is seen as a relational property obtaining between constituents, expressed
in °metrical trees as a
°binary relation between sister nodes
which are labeled weak or strong. The theory of metrical phonology is further
developed by e.g.
Hayes (1980),
Prince (1983),
Kager (1989) and others.
Metrical tree
PHONOLOGY: a branching representation of stress, introduced by
Liberman & Prince (1977),
see also °metrical phonology. A metrical
tree is a hierarchy in which °syllables are
combined into °feet and feet into a word
constituent. Higher level structure includes the
°phonological phrase,
°intonational phrase and
°utterance (cf.
Selkirk (1981),
Nespor & Vogel (1986)).
Pairs of sister nodes are labeled Weak-Strong or Strong-Weak (or by the
°Lexical Category
Prominence Rule). The English phrase achromatic lens is represented as follows:
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
w s
/ \ | where S = syllable, w = weak
Fw Fs F F = foot, s = strong
/ \ / \ \
Ss Sw Ss Sw S
| | | | |
a chro ma tic lens
Hayes (1981) constrained metrical
theory considerably by the introduction of a universally defined set of
°parameters that characterize the stress systems
of languages (i.e.
°bounded/unbounded;
°dominance (left/right),
°direction of footing,
°quantity-(in)sensitivity).
Minimal domain
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) the smallest subset K of S, S a set of
categories, such that for any element A of S, some element B of K reflexively
dominates A.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Minimal free form
MORPHOLOGY: a term which refers to the smallest unit that can exist
on its own in a sentence. Words are typically assumed to be minimal free forms.
Minimal Governing Category (MGC)
SYNTAX: Implementation of the notion
°binding domain, proposed in Chomsky
(1981). The MGC of alpha is defined as the minimal XP (maximal projection) that
contains alpha, a °SUBJECT
°accessible to alpha, and the
°governor of alpha.
EXAMPLE: in (i) the MGC of the °anaphor
each other is the embedded IP, since it contains each other, the
accessible subject the men, and the governor like. Hence,
each other must be °bound within
this IP in compliance with °condition A
of the °binding theory, and may
not be coindexed with the girls, which is not contained in its MGC.
(i) the girlsi believe that [IP the menj like each otherj/*i ]LIT. Chomsky (1981).
Minimal sign
MORPHOLOGY: a term which is introduced into linguistic theory in De
Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale. A minimal sign
is the minimal meaningful unit of a language where the relation between (phonetic)
form and meaning is purely arbitrary.
LIT.
De Saussure (19313),
Aronoff (1976).
Minimalist program
SYNTAX: a program aiming to eliminate from linguistic theory anything
which is not 'virtually necessary'. In Chomsky (1992) it is claimed that e.g.
d-structure and s-structure can be dispensed with.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Minimality Condition
SYNTAX: condition which ensures that there can be no ambiguity of
government. The 'absolute' form of the Minimality Condition states that a
projection of an intermediate head serves as a
°barrier for government by another proper
governor; it is defined as follows in Chomsky (1986b):
(i) gamma is a barrier for beta if gamma is a projection or the immediate
projection of delta, a zero-level category distinct from beta
The choice between 'a projection' and 'the immediate projection' depends on
whether a specifier should be governed from outside or not. Thus, in (ii)
(ii) X''
/|
spec X'
|
X
only X' is a barrier when 'the immediate projection' is chosen in (i), leaving
the specifier position open to government from outside, while both X' and X'' are
barriers for government when 'a projection' is chosen in (i). The Minimality
Condition is intended to exclude ambiguity of government, meaning that barriers
created by (i) are barriers for government only, not for movement. In other words,
Minimality does not play a role in
°Bounding theory, while it plays a
crucial role in determining whether or not the
°ECP is violated. Consider for instance (iii).
(iii) how did John announce [NP a plan [CP t2 to [ t1 fix the car t]]]Here t2 cannot be °antecedent-governed by how, resulting in an ECP violation, because the projection of the N0-head plan serves as a Minimality barrier. In Rizzi (1990) the concept of Minimality is relativized, so that government is only blocked by an intermediate governor of the same kind (rather than by any intermediate head, as in (i)). This means that government by a constituent in an A' specifier position will be blocked if there is an intermediate A' specifier, government by a constituent in an A specifier position will be blocked if there is an intermediate A specifier, while head-government will be blocked by an intervening head.
Modal
SYNTAX: a modal expression indicates the attitude of the speaker with
respect to the truth-value of the proposition expressed.
EXAMPLE: maybe, probably, possibly, may, can, etc. Modal verbs
(or 'auxiliaries' because of their defective flexion) are known to allow a
non-modal interpretation. Thus you may go can either mean that the
speaker feels that it is possible that you will go (the so-called epistemic
reading) or it can mean that you are allowed to go (the so-called root
interpretation).
Modal logic
SEMANTICS: the logic of sentences with modal expressions like
necessarily and possibly. These expressions can be added
as operators (say N and P) to standard logic:
(i) If phi is a formula, then Nphi is a formula (ii) If phi is a formula, then Pphi is a formulaSentences like these are interpreted in terms of possible worlds. Nphi is true if phi is true in every possible world; Pphi is true if phi is true in some possible world.
Modal verb
Verb which expresses modality.
EXAMPLE: may, can, must, seem, etc.
Model
SEMANTICS: the device which makes it possible to interpret formal systems
in model-theoretic semantics. The expressions of a formal language are then
interpreted with respect to a model. In propositional logic, this model is an
assignment of °truth values to the basic
°propositional letters of the
language.
EXAMPLE: the following example shows how complex expressions are
interpreted in terms of the truth values that the model assigns to the
propositional letters p and q.
(i) VM(p & q) = 1 if and only if VM(p) = 1 and VM(q) = 1In predicate logic, the model M consists of a universe of discourse (D) and a mapping I from the °individual constants and °predicate letters to the °universe of discourse. As the example shows, the interpretation of the formula P(c) is determined by the denotations that P and c get from the model.
(ii) VM( P(c) ) = 1 iff IM(c) in IM(P)LIT. Gamut (1991).
Model-theoretic semantics
°Model.
Modifier
Grammatical element which is neither an
°argument nor a
°predicate, but which modifies another
element or phrase (e.g. a predicate).
EXAMPLE: the adverb very is a modifier of the adjective
ill in he is very ill.
Modularity
Basic notion in the °GB framework referring
to the thesis that the human knowledge of language is modular, i.e. consists
of distinct subsystems (modules). Examples of modules are the
°Case system, the
°X-bar system, and the
°Binding system.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a).
Monotone decreasing
°Downward monotonicity.
Monotone increasing
°Upward monotonicity.
Monotonicity
SEMANTICS: determiners (and quantifiers) can be classified according
to their monotonicity-properties. A determiner D in a sentence of the form
[S [NP D CN] VP] establishes a relation between the interpretations of CN and
VP taken as sets of individuals. The monotonicity-properties of D can be found
by extending or restricting the interpretations of CN and VP, and checking whether
the resulting sentence is still true. Left upward/downward monotonicity deals
with the extension/restriction of CN; right upward/downward monotonicity
deals with the extension/restriction of VP. Left upward monotonicity is often
called Persistence and left downward monotonicity Antipersistence;
right monotonicity is then simply called monotonicity.
LIT.
Barwise & Cooper (1981),
Gamut (1991).
Montague Grammar
SEMANTICS: cover term for the kind of syntactic and semantic work that
is directly inspired by the work of the American philosopher Richard Montague.
It is based on the idea that the meaning theories for natural languages and formal
languages can and should be based on the same principles, according to a Universal
Grammar, of which the
°Compositionality Principle
is the most important one. The clearest and most influential concrete illustration
of Montague's ideas can be found in his article 'The Proper Treatment of
Quantification in Ordinary English' (usually referred to as PTQ) in which he
defined the syntax and semantics of a considerable fragment of English. The system
of rules and notations given there are the point of departure for Montague Grammar.
In PTQ, Montague does not interpret expressions of English directly, but he
translates English words and phrases into expressions of a logical language IL
which are interpreted in the usual model-theoretic way. PTQ employs some of the
most advanced logical instruments: the sentences of English are generated by a
categorial grammar, the syntactic counterpart of
°type logic, the logical language IL is a
combination of °intensional logic and
type logic with °lambda-abstraction
which is interpreted relative to a model containing
°possible worlds and moments of time,
and crucial use is made of °meaning
postulates. The range of constructions and phenomena treated in PTQ includes
quantifier scope, opaque contexts, conjunction, infinitival complements and
relative clauses.
LIT.
Gamut (1991),
Montague (1974).
Mood
SYNTAX: cover term for one of the four inflectional categories of verbs
(mood, tense, aspect, and modality). The most common categories are associated
with the way sentences are used: indicative (statement), imperative (command),
optative (wish), etc. Sometimes the distinction between declaratives (I go)
and interrogatives (Do I go?) is considered one of mood.
Mora
PHONOLOGY: a unit of °syllable weight
in moraic theory. Moras are the units to which metrical structure may refer.
EXAMPLE: long vowels are often considered to be bimoraic, while short
ones are monomoraic. This would explain the difference in behaviour with respect
to stress-rules between these two classes of vowels in
°quantity-sensitive languages.
LIT.
Hyman (1985),
Prince (1983),
Van der Hulst (1984),
McCarthy & Prince (1986),
Hayes (1989).
Morph
MORPHOLOGY: a term which refers to alternative forms or realizations of
a single °morpheme.
EXAMPLE: the English plural suffix is found in precisely three different
pronounciations, /s/, /z/, and /@z/: cats /kats/, dogs /dogz/,
and horses /ho:s@z/. Since these three elements all represent a single
morpheme, they are called morphs, and we say that /s/, /z/, and /@z/ are
°allomorphs of the abstract or underspecified
plural suffix /-Z/.
Morpheme
MORPHOLOGY: a term which refers to the smallest component of a word
that (a) seems to contribute some sort of meaning, or a grammatical function
to the word to which it belongs, and (b) cannot itself be decomposed into
smaller morphemes.
EXAMPLE: the English word disagreement can be decomposed
into three morphemes, viz. the prefix dis-, the base morpheme
agree, and the suffix -ment.
Morpheme-based morphology
MORPHOLOGY: a theory in which it is assumed that word formation rules
may operate over morphemes (e.g.
Halle (1973),
Siegel (1974),
Kiparsky (1982)).
This theory is an alternative to the theory of
°word-based morphology (e.g.
Aronoff (1976),
Booij (1977),
Scalise (1984)).
In the latter theory it is assumed that new words are formed by applying a word
formation rule to a single already
existing word. Both the new word and the existing one are members of major lexical
categories. EXAMPLE: English has the following verb classes:
(i) X=fer X=mit X=sume X=ceive X=duce refer remit resume receive reduce defer demit deceive deduce confer commit consume conceive conduce transfer transmit transduceApparently, we can isolate the prefixes re-, de-, con-, and trans- in these forms. However, the base forms fer, mit, sume, ceive, and duce do not exist as independent words. In a word-based morphology the words in (i) cannot be formed by a regular word formation rule. In a morpheme-based morphology, on the other hand, it is allowed to generate these verbs by prefixation rules. The question whether morphology is word based or morpheme based is still alive, and yet undecided.
Morpheme Structure Condition (MSC)
PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY: conditions which express regularities about the
phonological structure of morphemes. It is generally assumed that MSCs may be
stated in two ways: either as positive MSCs or as negative ones. A positive MSC
of English is that a morpheme may begin with up to three consonants where the
first one must be /s/ (e.g. string). Negative ones are that English
words may not begin with a velar nasal (*ngam), or end in /h/
(*pah). In recent theories of underspecification, conditions on the
phonological shape of morphemes are sometimes expressed by lexical
°redundancy rules.
LIT.
Halle (1959),
Stanley (1967),
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Kiparsky (1982),
Archangeli & Pulleyblank
(1986).
Morphemic Tier Hypothesis (MTH)
PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY: a hypothesis first introduced into the theory of
°Autosegmental phonology in McCarthy (1981) which entails the claim that every
morpheme making up a word is
assigned a separate tier, i.e., a separate and autonomous level of representation.
This hypothesis is mainly proposed to circumvent the
°No-Crossing Constraint which
says that association lines may not cross.
EXAMPLE: the Arabic word katab is made out of the triliteral
root ktb 'write', the perfective active morpheme a, and the
°template CVCVC. If the morphemes ktb
and a were represented at a single tier, association of these morphemes
to the template CVCVC would result in a violation of the No-Crossing Constraint,
as is shown in (i). By representing them at autonomous tiers as in (ii), this
problem is solved:
(i) * C V C V C * C V C V C
| | | | | | |
k a t b k t b a
(ii) a
/ \
C V C V C
| | |
k t b
LIT.
McCarthy (1981,
1986),
Steriade (1986),
Goldsmith (1990),
Spencer (1991).
Morpholexical rule
MORPHOLOGY: a kind of lexical
°redundancy rule proposed by
Lieber (1980,
1982)
to relate °allomorphs which
are listed in the lexicon, to each other. Morpholexical rules apply in a
subcomponent of the grammar which precedes both the word formation component
proper and the phonological component. The main motivation for this type of
rule is that there are cases in which word formation rules need to have access
to derived allomorphs before the phonology applies.
EXAMPLE: in the Australian language Warlbiri verbs have five conjugational
classes, each taking a different set of allomorphs of tense suffixes. The present
suffix has the allomorphs -nya, -nganya, -rninya, and
-nanya. These forms are phonologically very similar, and it is tempting
to derive them from a common underlying form by a kind of phonological rule.
Warlbiri also has a rule of reduplication which basically says: copy the first
two syllables or only the first if it has a long vowel. Given the fact that the
suffix is either monosyllabic or bisyllabic, the precise shape of the allomorph
must be known at the time the morphological rule of reduplication applies.
Morphological component
A component in the grammar in which the word formation rules apply. The
question whether there is actually an autonomous morphological component
is yet unresolved, and gave rise to
Anderson's famous (1982)
article "Where is Morphology?". Basically three main approaches can
be distinguished. The first approach (e.g.
Halle (1973),
Halle & Vergnaud (1987)
proposes a morphological component which is autonomous from syntax as well
as phonology. In the second approach, morphology and phonology are intertwined,
i.e., it is assumed that the rules of morphology and phonology apply within a
single component: the Lexicon (e.g.
Siegel (1974),
Pesetsky (1979),
Kiparsky (1982)).
In the third approach, morphology is an integrated part of the syntactic component,
which means that both are subject to the same set of principles and/or rules (e.g.
Chomsky (1957),
Lees (1960),
Baker (1985),
Lieber (1992)).
Schultink (1988) and
Spencer (1991) provide a survey
of the most important theoretical positions held by generative linguists.
Morphological object
MORPHOLOGY: a term that is introduced in DiSciulllo & Williams (1987)
to refer to one important conception of the notion 'word', viz. the conception
of word as an entity constructed out of morphological atoms (= morphemes) by
(concatenative) processes of affixation and compounding.
LIT.
Di Sciullo & Williams (1987).
Morphological Transformation
Prohibition (MTP)
MORPHOLOGY: a constraint proposed by McCarthy (1982a) which entails that
transformations are excluded from the morphological component.
Move alpha
SYNTAX: most general formulation of possible
°movements. In effect, Move alpha says that
some category alpha can be moved anytime anywhere. It generalizes rules such as
Move NP and Move wh, which in their turn generalize construction specific
transformations such as °Passivization
and °Raising. Move alpha itself is considered
an instance of °Affect alpha.
LIT.
Chomsky (1977b,
1980,
1981,
1986b),
Lasnik & Saito (1984,
1991).
Movement
SYNTAX: the process which plays a role in deriving
°S-structure from
°D-structure and
°LF from S-structure by the reordering of
constituents. We say that an element at S-structure has been moved if there
is a certain relationship between the element and an empty position elsewhere
in the structure.
EXAMPLE: in the question Who did he see, we interpret who
as the direct object of see. This is explained if who is
generated in the direct object position at D-structure (to the right of
see) and has been moved to the first position in S-structure. This is
a case of overt movement because the effect of movement is visible at
°PF. When movement is involved in the derivation of
LF, we speak of hidden or covert movement: the effect is invisible at the level of
PF. Thus in a °multiple question like
Who saw what, the second wh-phrase what is covertly
moved to sentence initial position in the derivation of LF (see
°wh-in-situ).
LIT.
Chomsky (1965,
1973,
1986b,
1992).
Multiple question
SYNTAX: Question with more than one wh-phrase.
EXAMPLE: Who bought what? In English, a multiple question
has all but one of its wh-phrases in situ, since only one
wh-phrase may be fronted
(°wh-in-situ).
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986b).
Mutation
MORPHOLOGY/PHONOLOGY: a process by which a new word is formed without
affixation, but simply by a change of the initial consonant of the base.
EXAMPLE: in the Siberian language Nivkh (or Gilyak) nouns can be derived
from verbs simply by changing the initial consonant (see (i)), and likewise
transitive and intransitive verbs are often related solely by mutation (see (ii)):
(i) vut^y id^y 'sweep' put^yis 'broom'
fady 'put on knee-piece' phad^y 'knee-piece'
(ii) gesqod^y 'burn NP' kesqod^y 'burn oneself'
zod^y 'bend' t^yod^y 'bend'
(C^y = palatalized C, Ch = aspirated C)
LIT.
Spencer (1991).