Re: THEORY: Morphomes (was Re: Chicken and egg; sound and form)

Dirk wrote:
<<
How does your definition of morphome differ from that of "morph" from
the American Structuralist tradition?
 >>

Perhaps it doesn't.  :)  My definition comes from the way it's
generally been used by Farrell Ackerman down here at UCSD,
so you can blame him.  ~:D

Dirk:
<<
This intermediate level is the morphomic level,
and elements of this level are morphomes. The morphome is bound to
neither a constant phonological realiziation nor to a constant
semantic or grammatical function.
 >>

This is definitely different from how I've been using it, though
I did the Aronoff, including this:

Dirk:
<<
Aronoff goes on to give an even more impressive demonstration of the
morphome drawn from Latin verbal inflection
 >>

But I'm afraid I have the same response as you here about the
Latin example:

Dirk:
<<
but I don't remember the details
 >>

By this definition, though, /-s/ should be a morphome, since it
doesn't have a constant form ([s], [z] and [@z] [unless one
analyzes it as such]), and also doesn't have a constant meaning
(plural, genitive, 3rd person singular present tense agreement...).

On the other hand, does "morph" cover all the things I was
talking about?  For example, the general /-l=/ ending.  It doesn't
seem to me like something I'd want to call either a morph or
a suffix (and certainly not a morpheme, as it has no identifiable
meaning), which is why I always called it a morphome.

(Huh.  The SIL Glossary definition of "morph" is dependent
upon the notion of a "morpheme".  That's not helpful...)

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Replies