I'm considering adding apostrophes to Tokana to separate clitic pronouns from their hosts. I recently made some changes to the morphology of Tokana which in turn led to a radical overhaul of the stress system. The old stress rule was as follows: (1) Words ending in a consonant or diphthong stress the final syllable--e.g. _totsat_ "table, bench" [to.TSAT], _ikei_ "dog" [i.KEJ]. (2) Words ending in a non-diphthong vowel stress the penultimate syllable--e.g. _paua_ "wash" [PA.wa], _itskana_ "arrive" [its.KA.na]. Exceptions to this rule were confined to a handful of words ending in a non-dipthong vowel with final stress, which were all marked with an accent grave, much as in Italian--e.g., _nape'_ "daughter", pronounced [na.PE]. The final stress here is justified by the fact that these words used to end in an [h]; the [h] was dropped, but the word-final stress triggered by the final consonant was retained. (In fact, the [h] remains when a suffix is added, e.g. _napeh-mo_ "with the daughter".) In my original conception, subject & object pronouns suffixed to verbs, as well as possessive pronouns suffixed to nouns, triggered a stress shift: soiha "wife" [SOJ.ha] soihama "my wife" [soj.HA.ma] But now--for reasons which are too convoluted to go into--I have decided to change the rule so that suffixed pronouns no longer trigger a stress shift: soiha "wife" [SOJ.ha] soihama "my wife" [SOJ.ha.ma] As a result, I now have oodles more exceptions to the basic stress rule than I had before, and the question is, how to mark them? This is especially important because of some other morphological changes I've made: Originally I marked the difference between main clauses ("I go") and embedded clauses ("...that/if/when I go") by adding a suffix to the verb: etum "X walked" [e.TUM] etuma "that/if/when X walked" [e.TU.ma] This is still true in most cases. However, there are now a couple tense forms where the difference between main/embedded clauses is marked solely by a shift in stress (the story is that historically there was a suffix, but it got reduced). As with the irregular forms mentioned above, these forms are marked with an accent over the final vowel. eta "X walks" [E.ta] eta' (< eta-a) "that/if/when X walks" [e.TA] As a result of this change, there are now lots of minimal stress pairs in Tokana (words which differ only in which syllable gets the stress). Now this is all fine as far as I'm concerned, but the question is, how should I indicate the stress in cases where a non-stress-shifting pronoun is suffixed to one of the forms above? For example, suppose that I add the suffix "-na" (he, she) to the forms above: How do I distinguish orthographically between [E.ta.na] "s/he walks" and [e.TA.na] "that/if/when s/he walks"? I envision three possible solutions: (1) Do like in Spanish: Words which obey the basic stress rule of the language are unmarked, while words which disobey it are marked with an accent over the stressed vowel. The disadvantage of this is that it would lead to a proliferation of accented vowels, which I find aesthetically displeasing. (2) Mark off suffixed pronouns with an apostrophe, to show that they do not participate in determining the stress of the word they attach to. This would lead to a proliferation of apostrophes, which I would like a bit better than a proliferation of accent marks, but not much. (3) Add an addendum to the basic stress rule of Tokana to the effect that suffixed pronouns don't cause a stress shift, and then mark exceptions to THAT rule with an accent over the stressed vowel. Under this system, [E.ta.na] would be unmarked (it obeys the rule which says to first strip off the suffixed pronoun, and then assign stress to the penultimate syllable if the remainder of the word ends in a non-diphthong vowel), while [e.TA.na] would get an accent mark over the stressed vowel (it violates the above rule). I'm leaning towards some sort of compromise between (2) and (3), but I'm not sure yet. Any suggestions or comments? Matt.