Feature metathesis and the change of PIE *du̯ to Classical Armenian -rk-*

Abstract

This paper reexamines the correspondence of Classical Armenian -rk- with Proto-Indo-European *du̯ and attempts to explain the change in a phonologically plausible way without recourse to illicit clusters or ad hoc rules not otherwise operational in the language. Instead, the change of *du̯ to -rk- is analyzed in Optimality framework as an instantiation of the Armenian sonority-based metathesis. Instead of the expected segment metathesis, however, I argue that this cluster underwent metathesis only of the feature [±continuant]. The need for feature metathesis rather than segment metathesis for this sequence was motivated by a TETU effect (The Emergence of The Unmarked) due to the markedness of the segment [w] in Classical Armenian. The markedness of [w] in Classical Armenian is supported by the later glide fortition seen in forms such as gini “wine”, from PIE *u̯oinii̯o-.

Isomorphism between orthography and underlying forms in the syllabification of the Armenian schwa

“…The use of directionality in this paper is thus incomparable to how Vaux uses it simply because we use directionality for different purposes. He likewise dismisses a templatic approach for schwa epenthesis with CVC templates, but doesn't discuss CVCC templates (p. 78).10 Although there is no evidence of a synchronic role for the syllable contact law in schwa epenthesis, there is diachronic evidence that is consistent with the syllable contact law from diachronic metathesis in Classical Armenian(DeLisi 2013(DeLisi , 2015.…”