Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Eliding repeated morphemes: synthesis vs analysis

From:Tristan McLeay <conlang@...>
Date:Monday, December 27, 2004, 9:00
On 27 Dec 2004, at 5.20 pm, Thomas R. Wier wrote:

> We had a discussion about this some months back about the > technical distinction between case affixes and clitic postpositions.
You don't perchance have the thread title to you? Would aid searching.
> The most widely accepted criteria are those set forth by Zwicky and > Pullum: > > (1) Clitics have “freedom of movement”, affixes do not. > (where 'movement' need not necessarily imply Movement > with a capital-M.) > (2) Clitics can attach to material already containing clitics; affixes > (since they are morphological entities) are pre-syntactic and > cannot > attach to material containing clitics.
'If it attaches to a clitic, it is a clitic'?
> (3) Clitics have freedom of host selection, affixes have no freedom of > stem selection. > (4) Clitic-host combinations may not have idiosyncratic meanings; > stem-affix combinations may. > (5) Clitics may neither trigger nor undergo morphophonological or > suppletive alternations, affixes may.
I thought /s~z~@z/ was a morphophonolgical alternation? Am I wrong, or are these just guidelines?
> (6) Clitic-host combinations may not have arbitrary gaps; > stem-affix combinations may.
By which I assume we mean "you can attach +im to any word except prepositions" would invalidate it? (assuming +im is a clitic & prepositions could come in a position where +im may attach). Thanks, -- Tristan.