Re: THEORY: Question: Bound Morphemes

In many languages, the difference between an affix and a bound word is
determined by how it interacts with suprasegmental, word-based
elements like accent placements.

If Boranesian has anything like a word-boundary-based accent pattern
(like Latin or Greek do), then it makes sense to write something down
as an affix if it becomes part of the word for accent purposes, and a
separate word if it doesn't.  (If you don't write it down as an affix
but it still affects word accent, it is technically a 'clitic,' I
think.)

If word boundaries have no effect on pronunciation or anything else,
then writing something as an affix or not is probably a matter of
taste.

+ Ed Heil ---------------------- edheil@postmark.net +
|    "What matter that you understood no word!       |
|    Doubtless I spoke or sang what I had heard      |
|           In broken sentences."  --Yeats           |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Kristian Jensen wrote:

> I have a question. (Perhaps a stupid one).
>
> In English, some bound morphemes are written as affixes, but others
> are written as seperate words (like the articles 'a' and 'the'). But
> aren't all bound morphemes in English (including the articles) really
> affixes? If not, what rule states that they should be written
> separately?
>
> I'm asking because I have stumbled onto another problem with my
> transcription of Boreanesian. I'm not sure whether to write the
> determiners seperately (like English articles even though they are
> bound morphemes) or as prefixes (because they are bound).
>
> Thanks,
> -kristian- 8)
>