Re: "discontinuous affixes"

Tom Wier wrote:
> 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?
Hmmm .... I s'pose you *could* extend the meaning to being inside an
affix, but I think I personally would analyze nala- as two prefixes,
which usually (or always) co-occur, frequently adjacent to each other.

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-name: NikTailor