Re: USAGE: Circumfixes

Pete writes:

>I can think of a way in which they would be naturally produced. Start of
>with a language that uses prefixes and suffixes to mark various grammatical
>categories. A semantic shift then occurs which merges the meanings of
>various prefixes and suffixes, so that they no longer occur independently.
>Indeed, the  French negative circumfixes can be easily analyzed as
>combinations of a prefix marking negativity in general (ne), and a variety
>of suffixes marking the type of negativity (pas, jamais, personne, plus etc.)
Ah, but to take the process one step further:

In colloquial French, at least, the "ne" is frequently dropped out:

J'sais pas. I dunno.
Y a que deux bouteilles. There are only two bottles (left).
Y est jamais allé à Strasbourg. He's never been to Strasbourg.

So the previously positive words: ever, more, drop, thing, crumb,
etc. which needed the negative umph of "ne" now can carry the double
load of the negative. Thereby "uncircumfixing" them. Too, there are
the classic "exceptions of S.T.O.P (a mnemonic for non-natives)

Je ne sais.
Si je ne me trompe,
Tu n'oserais
Je ne peux (puis?)

where the suffix isn't needed. Personally, I'm disinclined to see
Western Eurolangs as circumfix-friendly, at least according to my
understanding of "circumfix".

Kou