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
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.
email@example.com "All grammars leak."
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~elzinga/ -Edward Sapir