Re: L1 learning question
| From: | Carlos Thompson <cthompso@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, September 28, 1998, 7:48 |
|---|
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
Fecha: Lunes 28 de Septiembre de 1998 01:41
Asunto: Re: L1 learning question
>Tom Wier wrote:
>> The Latin grammarians explained their language essentially in a similar
>> way: certain forms of the verbs were based on certain stems (the present
>> stem, the perfect stem, so forth). This is the reason that if you go buy
>> the book "501 English Verbs" (yes, there really is such a thing), it will
>> list the four English principle parts for every verb.
>
>I'm reading _The World's Major Languages_, and here's what it says in
>the Spanish section, about stem-changing verbs:
>
>"Some linguists, arguing that so common an alternation must be produced
>by regular rule, have postulated underlying vowels /E/ and /O/ for
>radical-changing verbs and thus claim the synchronic process is
>identical to the historic change. Others reject this abstract analysis,
>but point out that the alternation is 99 per cent predicable if a form
>like puede is taken as basic rather than the infinitive [altho I'd like
>to point out that the infinitive + that form would be needed to predict
>forms like podemos as opposed to *podimos]. Yet others believe that
>Spanish speakers cannot predict these alternations at all, and must
>learn them as inherent features of the individual verb (rather like
>learning the gender of a noun). This last group point to two pieces of
>evidence. Firstly, derivational processes have destroyed the earlier
>phonological regularity of diphthongisation: _deshuesar_ 'to remove the
>bones/pits' is a verb coined from the noun _hueso_, but the diphthong
>which regularly occurs under stress in the noun is irregular in the
>infinitive, where it is unstressed. Parallel examples are _ahuecar_ 'to
>hollow out' from _hueco_ ... Secondly, speakers of some varieties
>stigmatised as non-standard, especially Chicano, regularly keep the
>diphthongalised stem throughout a paradigm regardless of stress
>placement, saying despiertamos, despierta'is for standard despertamos,
>desperta'is, 'we/you awaken'. All told, it looks as though a process
>which at first was phonologically regular has passed through a stage of
>morphological conditioning and is now giving way to lexical marking on
>individual words."
I can add that one tipical hat of the Colombian Caribean Region is called
"sombrero vueltiao", from _vuelta_ (turn), standard verb _voltear_ (to
turn), a new verb is derived _vueltiar_ keeping the diphthong. The
participe would be _vueltiado_ /Bwel'tja.Do/ with a very weak /D/ which
disappear.
By the way: What does the apostrophe means in desperta'is/sespierta'is?
Does Chicanos use the second person plural? I would believe that, as most
Spanish dialects from the Americas, Chicanos would use _ustedes_, which
follow the third person plural.
>Related question: where did the _sentir_/_morir_ type (which changes the
>-e-/-o- to -ie-/-ue- or -i-/-u- depending on place), and _pedir_ type
>(which changes -e- to -i-) come from?
If we use the regular cunterparts of _sentir_/_morir_ for the indicative
mode indefinite past, third person singular: _sentio'_/_morio'_