Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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. --And.


Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>