Re: semantic spheres of derivation
| From: | Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, June 12, 1999, 4:37 |
|---|
"J.Barefoot" wrote:
> At what semantic spheres can one still have unanalyzable
> monosyllables?
Why monosyllables? With disyllables you could have a lot more roots.
> For example, parts of the body are basic, right? They could
> be roots themselves but don't need to be derived form anything, right?
They could be derived. "Leg", for instance, can mean "that which walks"
or "that which supports". Mouth could be "that which speaks".
Conversely, "walk" could mean "to use the legs", "speak" could mean "to
use the mouth". Virtually anything could be derived from something.
It's all a matter of how many basic terms you want.
--
Happy that Nation, - fortunate that age, whose history is not diverting
-- Benjamin Franklin
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ #: 18656696
AIM screen-name: NikTailor