...manipulated.

For more discussion of these issues, see Karttunen [17].

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...discussed.

The Yokuts case is problematic for Optimality theory (Cole and Kisseberth [2], McCarthy [23]) because rounding depends on the height of the stem vowel in the underlying representation. Cole and Kisseberth offer a baroque version of the two-level solution. McCarthy strives mightily to distinguish his ``sympathy'' candidates from the intermediate representations postulated by the rewrite approach.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...conflict.

 The DPATR system at SRI (Karttunen [16]) had the same operation with a less respectable title. It was called ``clobber''.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...operation.

Hammond implements a pruning operation that removes output candidates under the condition that ``pruning cannot reduce the candidate set to null'' (p 13). Frank and Satta (p. 7) describe a process of ``conditional intersection'' that enforces a constraint if it can be met and does nothing otherwise.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...ParseN.

Thanks to Jason Eisner (p.c.) for this observation.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.