Re: THEORY: Xpositions in Ypositional languages {X,Y}={pre,post}

Quoting Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>:

> Hi!
>
> Andreas Johansson writes:
> > Quoting Eric Christopherson <rakko@...>:
> >
> > > A little more on topic, another putative phenomenon is endoclitics --
> > > clitics which occur inside of words (either between morphemes or
> > > within them). They are thought by some (e.g. Judith Klavans and
> > > Arnold Zwicky) not to exist, but others (e.g.  Alice Harris and
> > > Ethelbert Karl) disagree. They seem to occur in at least Udi, Pashto,
> > > and Degema.
> > >
> > > Then there are also mesoclitics, which occur between morphemes within
> > > a word in Portuguese. I don't see why some so-called endoclitics
> > > (i.e. the ones between morphemes) shouldn't be called mesoclitics.
> >
> > Examples?
>
> I could imagine Eric means the object pronouns in future tense which
> are between the verbal root and the future ending.  Historically, this
> developed from INF + OBJ_PRONOUN + habere.  In other Romance langs,
> the object pronoun moved away when the 'habere' forms became verb
> endings.
>
> Since I don't speak Portuguese, I've used Google to provide some
> examples:
>
> Eu falarei        - I will speak
> Eu falar-lhe-ei   - I will speak to him.
Cool. However, an alternate analysis suggests itself: unlike  in other Romance
languages, the reflex of 'habere' HASN'T become an ending, but remains a
quasi-independent cliticized verb, the proof being the very fact that it does
allow other clitics between it and the infinitive. Are there good reasons to
reject this?

 Andreas


> Or was it something else, you meant, Eric?
>
> **Henrik
>

Reply