"Leon Lin" <leon_math@...> wrote:
> <<
> If you follow this line of reason, the question becomes, is there
> any difference between syntax and morphology? Many Chomskyan
> linguists have said "no"...
> >>
>
> I think there is a subtle difference. Morphology only affects a word
> or root neighboring it (or neighboring neighbor affix), while certain
> words with grammatical usage may affect a word at the other end
> of the sentence. Surely no one defines a word as being separable
> into scattered parts all over a sentence?
You mean other than German separable verbs? Let Samuel "Mark
Twain" Clemens explain:
> The German grammar is blistered all over with separable verbs;
> and the wider the two portions of one of them are spread apart,
> the better the author of the crime is pleased with his performance.
> A favorite one is <reiste ab> -- which means departed.
> Here is an example which I culled from a novel and reduced to
> English: "The trunks being now ready, he DE- after kissing his
> mother and sisters, and once more pressing to his bosom his
> adored Gretchen, who, dressed in simple white muslin, with a
> single tuberose in the ample folds of her rich brown hair, had
> tottered feebly down the stairs, still pale from the terror and
> excitement of the past evening, but longing to lay her poor
> aching head yet once again upon the breast of him whom she
> loved more dearly than life itself, PARTED."
Herman Miller wrote:
> Can all the particles be used as independent words, or are any
> of them bound morphemes?
Can Cispa <ip> be used apart from a verb?
> But then you'd have to account for things like
> "to boldly go" and so on.
But "abso" and "lutely" are absofsckinglutely not words in
educated English. Just because a language has infixation does
not mean that the point of infixation separates words.
--
Damian