Template talk:tby-verb

@Thadh Hello! Sorry that I've made this a regular thing, but would you be able to help (again)? I don't want the stem (see resene) to produce a link (probably just italics would be ok). Is that possible? Alexlin01 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexlin01: How about this? By the way, as long as you keep editing I'm happy to help :P Thadh (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thadh: Thanks, that's perfect! So, it's not exactly a stem, but an "underlying form" (you'll see it on the wiki page too), but that's too wordy to put. Is there a better name than stem? Alexlin01 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexlin01: I honestly don't think I know of a better way to describe this. With Komi-Zyrian, where there is consistent -l > -v (a somewhat similar process), literature mostly uses "stem" as the go-to term, but I don't know what the customary terminology would be with Papuan languages... Maybe @Austronesier knows? Thadh (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not exactly a stem, because morphologically complex words also can end in an underlying consonant. Maybe simple "underlying" (without "form") would do? This is also what it is called in Kotynski (1988). It's quite funny, since I was the one who expanded the WP Tabaru article based of Fortgens only, and did a little OR when talking about the underlying form, and only later saw that Kotynski analyzed it in the same way.

Another option would be to add the underlying form in the "Pronunciation" section in phonemic slashes as Kotynski does. This level of abstraction is also found in the analysis of other languages in the wider area with paragogic vowels, e.g. Coastal Konjo (which is Austronesian, not Papuan, but typologically quite similar). –Austronesier (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I actually just stumbled upon Kotynski (which is what led to this Tabaru spree)! I too was kinda unhappy calling it a stem. I think I'll go with "underlying" (or underlyingly?), but I'll leave the pronunciation as is, since that's the surface form and how the lemma is to be pronounced. Thanks! Alexlin01 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier Also, can you make any sense out of the clitic prefixes he lists? It's making my head spin. Alexlin01 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexlin01: The discussion of prefixes is much clearer in Fortgens' grammar sketch. He has tons of examples for the derivational prefixes, and also the person markers are easier to understand if you read Fortgens. E.g., Kotynski's "pp (plural partitive)" and "pa (plural all)" simply mean "paucal" and "plural". And the prefix g- is actually only realized as g- before vowels, and as mutation (voicing) of initial voiceless consonants (which is awfully reminiscent of initial mutation in Nias). So e.g. from temo 'say', you can have si- (applicative) + g- + temo > sidemo 'say to'. –Austronesier (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I think "underlyingly" is a better term for the header than "underlying":

resene (underlyingly resen-)

To be honest, I don't even think "underlying form" is too long, considering there aren't any other parameters present in the template:

resene (underlying form resen-)

I do think we want this information in the header, rather than the pronunciation section though. Thadh (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thadh: You're right! It's certainly not too much to have. From what I'm seeing in the morphology section, I don't think we'll be having other parameters either. Alexlin01 (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)