Double-Consonant Base Verbs in Korean

O. In a very interesting paper entitled 'On the regularity of the so-called irregular verbs 'in Korean', Kim (1968b) presents a forceful argument -for what he calls 'the principle of implosion' (see below). On the basis of this principle, Kim provides are analysis of some-verbs whose final consonant alternation in conjugation has been considered irregular. In developing his argumentation for the regularity of the consonant alternations in terms of the principle of implosion, Kim postulates 'voiceless obstruents' Wand R as the underlying root-final consonants for the so-called 'p-anomalous·'Verbs' and 't-anomalous verbs' respectively. Kim also argues that there are two underlying liquid phonemes, not just one as has been recognized in many traditional analyses of Korean phonology.l The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative solution in which I shall argue that the p-anomalous verbs and t-anomalous verbs as well as the irregular I-base verbs('L-doubling vowel bases', Martin 1954) do not have a single root-final consonant, but a cluster of two root-final consonants, no member of which is subject to 'absolute neutralization' (Kiparsky 1968) ras Kim's W and R are

SAI-SIOS(ㅅ) : A MISTAKEN IDENTITY OF GEMINATION

Sai-sios (or Bindungs-S) has been mistakenly viewed as an epenthetic t (orthographically s) or n that is inserted between two nouns which constitute a compound. This paper documents evidence that (i) Sai-sios is one of numerous manifestations of a gemination rule which copies the initial consonant of the second noun in a compound, that (ii) the orthographic s (Le. Sai-sios) has caused hypercorrections and spelling pronunciations which have introduced some less natural or spontaneous pronunciations, and that (jjj) all Sai-sios phenomena can be accounted for by independently motivated and well-known phonological rules_ The identity of geminated consonants(as well as the rule of gemination) is obscured (and mistakenly identified as an epenthetic consonant) by the interaction of such well-known rules as obstruent neutralization, hardening (or tensification) and nasal assimilation, lateral nasalization, and cluster reduction (or degemination). Unlike the epenthesis analysis, the gemination analysis does not require a single extra rule or ad hoc device; furthermore the latter can account for other significant data that the former fails to accommodate