Re: terminology: prepositions, postpositions, and...

Michael Poxon wrote:
> Yes, that diminutive -ul- (as in "Ursula") always struck me as an infix.
> Mike
Not according to the standard definition of an infix: "An affix which
occupies a position in which it interrupts another single morpheme."

In the example above -ul- comes between two morphemes urs- (bear) and -a
(feminine suffix). To be an infix it would have to come within the
morpheme urs- (say, *uruls- ) as, e.g. -n- in tang-ere (to touch) <--
root *tag-.

But if you read my comment below carefully and refer back to the thread
on this subject earlier this year, you will see that I specifically
mention _inposition_ (i.e. an adposition which interrupts a noun phrase,
e.g. magna cum laude = with great praise).

> Yep - which means, as I pointed out more than once in the recent thread
> on the same subject, this means that Classical Latin had inpositions.
> But AFAIK no grammar will say so. Instead it merely draws attention to
> the usual placement of prepositions in certain phrases or by certain
> authors.
Atho at times the borderline between affixes & adpositions (and clitics)
may be fuzzy, IMO it is unhelpful to confuse affixes and adpositions.

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitudinem.