THEORY/YAEPT: Re: Terkunan: rules for deriving nouns, verbs, adjectives
|From:||And Rosta <and.rosta@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 2:25|
Dirk Elzinga, On 30/10/2007 18:33:
> On 10/30/07, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
>> The GMP *should not* distinguish between morphological endings and
>> normal stem ends (where they are word-final), because real sound
>> changes *do not make such distinctions*. You are trying to simulate
>> something that *just doesn't happen* in natlangs. If a final -m
>> goes away, for instance, it does so no matter what kind of morpheme
>> it is part of.
> It is not true that sound changes do not take morphological boundaries
> into account. Consider the following examples from a non-standard
> variety of English:[...]
> So it seems that morphological information is crucial to understanding
> this change, and your statement that "sound changes don't care the
> least of the morphological structure
> of the word" is not true, or is at best overstated.
Further examples from English (English being the language I know something about):
Here are some minimal pairs in various accents of English.
finger : singer [everywhere but NW England]
madder (brown) : madder (more mad)
gladden (iris) : gladden (make glad) [various places]
pause : paws [SE England]
hula : ruler [SE England]
holy : holey [SE England]
nose : knows [Leeds]
pride : pried [Northumbria]
brood : brewed [Scotland, Ireland]
The second item in each pair contains a morpheme boundary & has a phonetic
realization found only when a morpheme boundary is present.
The notion that phonology is blind to morphological juncture is an erroneous (and
nowadays obsolete?) piece of dogma.