Abstract
Grassmann’s Law ‒ the phonetic change by virtue of which in an original diaspirate root a (regressive) dissimilation process takes place ‒ is generally regarded as working in reduplicated verbal forms, see e.g. τίθημι < */thitheːmi/, πέφeυγα < */phepheuga/ and so on. In this paper, I would argue in favour of the morphological nature of the process that generates non aspirated segments in the reduplicant. Indeed, the reduplicant is typologically characterized by the presence of unmarked features: among these, the non-aspirated stops can be included, if compared with the respective aspirated ones. KEYWORDS: Dissimilation, Grassmann’s Law, phonetic laws, markedness, reduplication
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
