Task 1 A: In order to divide the words into morphemes we have to find similarities in the stem and affixes.

In this example only a prefix is visible (it repeats in many examples and serve a certain grammatical function), therefore the division is establishes as follows: Nouns + ams +nuur +saaq +ahab +na +raas + aw +tall Def. Art + Noun a+ams an+nuur as+saaq a+ahab an+na ar+raas a + aw at+tall Nouns +daar + awr +fiil +xaal +walad +baab +ab Def. Art + Noun ad+daar a + awr al+fiil al+xaal al+walad al+baab al+ab

The alternation occurs in the suffix. The alternating sounds are: , n, s, , r, , t, and l. B: In the case of words like [annur] and [attall] we have a situation, where the prefix bears resemblance to the root morpheme. As the stem exhibits no alternation, we assume its UR is identical to the SR. We could assume that in Arabic, in order to match a definite article with a noun there is a need for a rule that repeats a sound creating a geminate (UR would be //a//). The rule would state: [ ] [ ]

The rule is wrong as it makes incorrect predictions for Arabic. It would explain words such as [annuur] or [arraas]; however, a problem would occur in examples like [alfiil] or [alxaal]. Had the rule been correct, those words would have been [affiil[ and [axxaal] respectively. If we assume that the prefix is //a//, //an// or any of geminate suffixes occurring in the def. art. is the correct UR, we encounter several difficulties. Firstly, its impossible to establish which of the following sounds is in the correct UR, as they all occur once in the data set. Secondly, the derived rule would also be improbable: , n, s, , r, , t ]

There is no possibility of generalizing the context for such a rule (the sounds in the context do not form a natural class of sounds], therefore the rule is incorrect. Looking at the counterexamples to the previous rule, we can assume that the UR of the prefix is //al//, which changes into different sounds. In order to establish such a rule, a context for the change must be generalized: occurs before: , n, s, , r, , t All of those sounds, in contrast to those before [l] ([l] occurs before: f, x, w, b, ), are coronal sounds. This feature allows us to formulate a rule: [ ] [ ]

The rule seems to be correct, as there are no counterexamples to it. The rule transforms the [l] into a geminate corresponding with the first sound (which must be coronal) of the word defined by the article. Let us call the rule: Coronal assimilation. Because the words like [malzuum] are possible in Arabic, we assume that the rule works only across morpheme boundary. C: The word [allughah] is not problematic to the rule. The root morpheme of the word is: lughah, and the change is predictable according to the rule. The [l] from the UR of the prefix //al// changed into the same coronal [l] which is the first sound of the stem, and remained exactly the same, as none of the features changed. D: The word [aljadd] is not problematic to the rule, as [j] is not a consonantal sound. Task 2 A: The division into morphemes is very similar to one form task 1, as the pattern remains the same, and there is a clear repetition. Infinitive + arrab +ataf +aban + arab +fakkar Passive form i + arrab i+ataf i+aban i + arab it+fakkar

+rakab +balim +lafatli

it+rakab it+balim it+lafatli

In this set of words the alternating sounds are: , , , , and t. B: The coronal assimilation rule does not apply here, because it would also change [it+lafatli] into [il+lafatli] and [it+rakab] into [ir+rakab]. The rule needed here seems to be similar, but the context is obviously different. C: It is not possible to merge two rules into one, as they operate on different sounds ([l] and [t]) and have different contexts. It would be impossible to establish the context for them which would explain all the words in set (compare: [ar+raas] and [it+rakab] there is no possibility of generalizing the rule in the way that accounts for both of the words). D: In order to establish the UR of the word [i+aban] we have to compare it to other from the set. . As the stem exhibits no alternation, we assume its UR is identical to the SR. There is no reason in comparing the prefix to those words which exhibit an alternation once as it would behave in the same way, so we need to contrast it with those showing the same prefix alternation in more than one case: it+fakkar, it+rakab, it+balim, and it+lafatli. The prefix in all of them is [it]. If we assume that the UR of the prefix is: //i// we need to explain the occurrence of [t] in some cases.

The rule is incorrect, as there is no possibility of generalizing the context for it. Also, the UR with [ , , , ] sounds would encounter the same difficulties as in the task 1 its impossible to establish which of the following sounds is in the correct UR, as they all occur once in the data set. Let us now assume that the UR is //it//. We need a rule similar to coronal assimilation:

which will be generalized to: [ ] [

Let us call this rule: Coronal obstruent assimilation C (update): It seems that it is possible to merge two rules into one format: [ ] [ ] [ ]

The rule would still be called Coronal assimilation. Not to confuse it with the first rule, I shall add 2 and the end, hence Coronal assimilation 2. E: The word [ikkabb] is definitely problematic for this newly established system. The velar sound [k] triggers the process reserved only for coronals (up to this moment). We can treat the example as an exception and therefore arrive at a much desired outcome with one merged rule. The more appropriate however would be including [k] into the context for the Coronal obstruent assimilation:

hence generalization: [ ] [ ]

The rule shall be called: Coronal-Dorsal Assimilation (corsal assimilation). F: The rules do not have to be in order, as there is no possibility that they would apply in the same word, as one works for nouns, and the other for verbs. G: Derivation of [i+aban] UR Corsal assimilation SR //it+ aban// /i+aban/ [i+aban]