Re: "discontinuous affixes"

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Tom Wier wrote:
> > Wouldn't that make it an infix for a prefix?
>
> No, an infix goes inside the *root*, for instance, in Oaxaca Chontal (a
> language in Mexico), the root kwepo' means "lizard", and the plural
> infix -l- is added to make kwelpo' (lizards); the rule is, IIRC, that it
> goes after the first vowel.
Well, why should we restrict the meaning to a root?  I mean, what's happening
is this:  you have a prefix like "nala-" in your example, which has one meaning,
is one morpheme, and than you insert another prefix inside that to alter the
word further, with the two constituent elements of the original prefix remaining
otherwise intact...  what makes that any less of an infix than one that goes on
a root?

=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and
oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil
spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson
========================================================