Re: Small Derivational Idea

Gah! Both these e-mails came *right* as I had to dash off to a�meeting, so�I've
been chomping at the bit for the last two hours to respond to them.��On Feb
24, 2009, at 12∞58 PM, Alex Fink wrote:��> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:42:27
-0800, David J. Peterson�> <dedalvs@...> wrote:�>�>> My favorite morpheme
test: Spanish diminutives:�>>�>> Paco = /pak-/ "name" + /-o/
"masculine"�>> Paquito = /pak-/ "name" + /-it/ "diminutive" + /-o/
"masculine"�>> Carlos = /karlos/ "name"�>> Carlitos = /karl-/ "name" +
/-it/ "diminutive" + /-os/ "?!?!?!?"�>> or...�>> Carlitos = /karlos/ "name"
+ /-it-/ "diminutive"�>>�>> Either there is allomorphy among the masculine
suffix morpheme,�>> or the diminutive has an infix allomorph, giving Spanish
hosts of�>> prefixes and suffixes and exactly one infix. Both are rather
absurd,�>> and entirely miss the point.�>�> Isn't there also _azu'car_ >
_azuquitar_? That one suggests�> infixing even�> more strongly.��Wow.
Certainly not in my Spanish! I haven't got all the responses I�need�yet,
but I'm trying to find out if this is even productive, and at�one point�it
stopped being productive, if it isn't. The Spanish speakers that�are
my�age, though, do not have this, and when I told them about it, the�first
thing�they thought is what I thought: that it was a different word. And,�if
you�google azucarito, you get 10.4 million results vs. 27.8 thousand
for�azuquitar.�Are you sure it's not regional or antiquated?��> But
why's it absurd that Spanish would have exactly one infix? I�> thought�>
that languages with infixes tended to have only few of them.��Let me
further specify: It's absurd for Spanish's one infix to be the�allomorph�of
a diminutive suffix that is identical in form. That just begs to�be
explained,�and looks like a missed generalization.��> Anyway, are you
saying that if you look at this word-and-paradigm�> style you�> should
reject the whole concept of "infix"? You shouldn't use it to�> describe a
paradigm with a pattern relating forms to the same forms�> with a�> bit
stuck inside them somewhere?��No. Did it seem like I was saying that? If
so, how?���On Feb 24, 2009, at 1∞28 PM, Andreas Johansson
wrote:�>�> What's absurd about supposing -os to be an ending? Its
etymology, the�> repeat occurence in Marcos, and its disappearance in
derivations like�> _carlista_ are certainly suggestive of
endingness.��The question is if it's an ending to *modern* speakers the way
/-um/,�/-us/ and /-a/ were endings to Latin speakers. I suspect it's not,
but�that it's used as an analogical model for adding things like
/-it/.��More importantly, if you posit, let's say, two masculine endings,
/-o/�and /-os/, then there's no reason why you couldn't have /-men/
or�/-tifuli/, or anything as a masculine ending. By positing these
as�allomorphs of the same underlying morpheme, you deny the similarity�in
shape, or their evolution--and the same goes for positing /-it/ and�/-it-/.
Formally, it looks like an accident that the forms are similar.��>> This is
what one is forced to do, though,�>> if one takes seriously the claim that
languages are separated into�>> atoms, and each of these atoms contains a
unique meaning,�>> and meaning is the mere combination of these atoms. I
can�>> understand why a linguist might want to be constrained thus, but�>>
why a conlanger?�>�> I've got grave doubts that the majority or even a
significant minority�> of users of the term "morpheme" accept those
claims.��Of course, the users of the term "morpheme" encompass more
than�the community of linguists. :)��> But there's at�> least one
obvious reason a conlanger might want to be so constrained -�> lots of people
find its easier to be creative when working under�> constraints rather than
in total freedom.��I certainly agree. And if someone has laid hold of some
sort of�framework or theoretical idea to artificially constrain one's
creation�by choice, that's their choice, and it's interesting to see what
the�results are given those choices. If, however, this is not a
consciously�accepted choice, that's what I object to. Many I suspect
simply�accept the idea of a morpheme, and, as a result, create
highly�concatenative conlangs--more so than any natural language�(even
Turkish).��-David�*******************************************************************�"sunly
eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."�"No eternal reward will forgive
us now for wasting the dawn."��-Jim
Morrison��http://dedalvs.conlang.org/�

Reply