Title of the article

3.2.Base-Identity in suffixation

Having discussed the unmarked nature of the lenis obstruents, we are now ready to look at the way FFD interacts with Base-Identity. Such a case arises when a suffix attaches to a fricative-final stem.

Like stem-medial and final positions, the initial obstruent of a suffix does not exhibit a laryngeal contrast, indicating that it is a non-prominent position. Except for a few exceptional cases, only lenis obstruents are allowed._⁴²

3.5

-tox/rox/dox allative (case suffix)

-u/gu/ku plural

-t/d infinitive

-gu/ku causative
When affixed to a stem, the redundant [+voice] specification of the stem-final segment spreads to the initial obstruent of the suffix.
3.6

ra-d ‘to drink-INF’

pil-d ‘big-INF’

amam-d ‘to walk-INF’

ifk-t ‘to harness-INF’

jup-t ‘to bind-INF’

ro-gu-d ‘to help-CAU-INF’

lt-ku-d ‘to do-CAU-INF’

cam-gu ‘shaman-PL’

cam-dox ‘shaman-ALL’

There is an interesting discrepancy between fricative-final nominal and verbal stems in this context; following a verbal stem, the initial segment of a suffix is always voiced (3.7a), while following a nominal stem, it is always voiceless (3.7b).
3.7

1. 
   fuv-d ‘to blow/to saw-INF’
   

i-d ‘to kill-INF’

tv-d ‘to go inside the house-INF’

jar-d ‘to feed-INF’

roz-gu-d ‘to divide-CAU-INF’

tmz-gu-d ‘drop-CAU-INF’

2. 
   kins-ku ‘evil spirit-PL’
   

cxf-ku ‘bear-PL’

orr-ku ‘Uilta-PL’

tf-tox ‘house-ALL’

tir-tox ‘wood-ALL’

The reason of this discrepancy is not immediately clear. In particular, the final voiceless fricative of nominal stems is a mystery. Being affixed by a suffix, it is no longer in the context of FFD, so nothing prevents it from appearing in the unmarked voiced fricative. In fact, this is the case with verbal stems; final fricatives of verbal stems are systematically voiced (3.7a). The other context-sensitive requirement, namely, the precedence to a plosive cannot be the reason either since these suffixes have a voiced variant, which surfaces when following a (redundant) [+voice] segment (3.6, 3.7a). The derivatives of verbal stems in 3.7a show that the initial plosive of these suffixes can accommodate a (preceding) voiced fricative, unlike plosives in a stem. But in fact, this option is not adopted in nominal stems. In short, these context-sensitive requirements cannot explain the different behavior of final-fricatives in nominal and verbal stems.

Under Base-Identity, however, such a discrepancy is explicable. Recall that nominal and verbal stems have different morpho-lexical compositions. Nominal stems can surface without any morphological ending, making the last fricative target of FFD. In contrast, final fricative of a verbal stem is always followed by a morphological extension, making it irrelevant to FFD. Since Base-Identity claims that derivatives should phonologically conform to the base, nominal derivatives conform to their base, which ends in a voiceless fricative (due to FFD). This is not the case, however, for verbal stems since they have no base and therefore do not underlie such pressure. As a consequence, verbal stems undergo canonical phonology and fricatives in non-prominent positions do appear as lenis, the unmarked obstruents of the language.

Finally, it is important to note that reference to laryngeal specifications using Input-to-Output correspondence constraints is not a viable option in this context. Recall that there is no laryngeal contrast in stem-final position in Nivkh. A phonological theory which minimizes the specification of predictable features in underlying representations, which is the one adopted here, makes it impossible for Input-to-Output constraints to refer to the voiceless status of stem-final fricatives._⁴³ Thus their voicelessness should come from somewhere else. According to the current analysis it originates from the base, the independently occurring isolated form.