Re: THEORY: Question: Bound Morphemes

Ed Heil wrote:

>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.
In that case, I think I'm dealing with affixes. But what if I'm=20
dealing with an accent pattern that is phrasal rather than local?=20
In Boreanesian, this could especially be a problem in verbal phrases=20
because they tend to be quite long. Many of the morphemes that make=20
up the verb phrase itself is linked to the verb (nominalized verb)=20
via the genitive. For example (with each morpheme separated by a=20
space for the sole purpose of this example):

     /t[@ s@k@:h ?@n@Nh kijh m@nuw?/
     the  place  eat    1    chicken
     lit.: 'my eating-place of chicken'

Phrasal stress falls regularly on the final syllable. In the example=20
above for instance, it falls on the syllable /nuw?/. Secondary=20
phrasal stress falls on all heavy syllables before the final, and on=20
all odd minor syllables before a heavy syllable. Does this mean that=20
the above phrase should be written as one word?

I have heard of languages, like the Polynesian languages, where=20
authorities cannot agree what constitutes a word because boundaries=20
tend to be fluid. I fear that this may be the case with Boreanesian.

>(If you don't write it down as an affix
>but it still affects word accent, it is technically a 'clitic,' I
>think.)
Actually, I have seen that clitics can be affixes too.

-kristian- 8)