Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Terminology defs

From:dirk elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>
Date:Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 14:59

Been having a little trouble with sending to CONLANG; I hope this time
it goes through.

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Tom Wier wrote:

> Bryan Maloney wrote: > > > To expand on morphology: > > > > The morpheme often spelled in English "-ly" is an English morpheme > > consisting of the phonemes /l/ and /y/. However, there is no English > > morpheme comprised of /n/ followed by /g/--that violates English > > morphological characteristics (I prefer that to "rules", which some folks > > use, since I'm a biologist and teleological language makes me all oooogly). > > Exactly what would those rules be that you're referring to? Are you > talking about phonological rules? If so, I might believe that: I can't > think of one example where a nasal stop followed by a velar stop does > not assimilate in place of articulation: [n] / _g --> [N]. But morphological > rules?
One sense in which morphology can be said to have rules (pace Bryan) is with ablaut and mutation. Getting 'took' from 'take' involves no addition of material, only a qualitative change in the stem vowel. Describing this change with a rule is a pretty straightforward step. There are currents within morphology which analyze all word-formation processes in this way, even affixation. In such an approach, the (regular) past tense formation rule of English looks something like: /X/ -> /X-ed/; 'past tense' There are advantages and disadvantages to such an approach. Dirk -- Dirk Elzinga "All grammars leak." -Edward Sapir