Re: Small Derivational Idea

On Feb 24, 2009, at 9∞40 AM, Paul Kershaw wrote:��> ---- Original Message
----�>> From: David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...>�>> It's based on phonological
constraints usually (languages don't�>> know about "morphemes". They're not a
very useful theoretical�>> device, in my opinion).�>�> Inasmuch as
languages aren't sentient, they don't know about�> anything. But given that
the differentiation between "infix,"�> "suffix," and "prefix" is how one
morpheme adheres to another, it�> seems counterproductive to reject the
notion of "morpheme" when�> discussing how infixes work (if you were
discussing "affixing" on�> the other hand, well, then, that's a different
story ;) ).��That's a poor definition of infixing, suffixing and
prefixing.�In fact, infixes are particularly problematic for the
morpheme-�based theories, in general, since they can't be written
as�strings (and which is why most morphemes are treated�like prefixes or
suffixes). Why not simply find the characteristics�that define which words a
prefix/suffix/infix may cooccur�with?��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. 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?��> In English, as the only language I'm fluent
enough to comment�> on :D, it's certainly true that the rare examples of
infixes follow�> a phonemic rather than morphemic rule, specifically: a word
can�> take an obscenity infixed preceding the first non-stressed�>
syllable, as in "guaran-goddamn-tee," "in-f***ing-credible," and�>
"abso-f***ing-lutely".��That's what I was trying to remember! Can't believe
I forgot�the one most often used by English speakers. It seems,
though,�that what happens is the infix is sensitive to something
specific,�and is placed with respect to that something specific.��>> (6)
Infixing after the lowest alphabetic letter.�>�> Many more languages don't
know about alphabetic letters than don't�> know about morphemes. ;) I
wouldn't expect any natural, terrestrial�> language to have such a rule as
this, although, sure, it's possible�> in an englang.��That, of course,
was an example of infix placement which could�possible occur in a conlang
which could NOT occur in a natural�language. I'm pretty sure I said as much
in my original
post.��-David�*******************************************************************�"A
male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."�"No eternal reward
will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."��-Jim
Morrison��http://dedalvs.conlang.org/�

Replies