Re: Old Nindic Object Pronouns

Elliott wrote:

<<Clitics,
imply to my at least, that they're attached to a word
with little or no morphophonemic changes occuring to
either clitic or host word. If this is the case (which
I'm not sure it is), then these can't be clitics.>>

<snip examples>

Well, in English "n't" is generally believed to be a clitic,
and while it doesn't change "did", "are" or "is", it certainly
does change "will" ("won't"), "do" /duw/ ("don't" /downt/)
and, in some dialects, "shall" ("shan't" [sp?]).   Naturally
these sound changes occurred over time because these
forms are so frequently used.   I think that sounds a lot like
the examples you listed.

<snip explanation of reduplication>

Ahhh!   Yes, that makes sense.   Neat!

<<Ha...I couldn't tell you. Mostly a word probably can
consist of four things:>>

Believe me, this is something that's even difficult to
nail down when it comes to natural languages.   For
English, I think a word has to have a conventionalized
meaning.   So, in the word "master", the "ter" part isn't
a word (even though it's an acceptable phonological
unit) because it has no conventionalized meaning:
"master" is not a compound of the words "mas" and "ter".
However, that's not enough.   "n't" has a conventionalized
meaning, but it's not a word because it can't occur by
itself.   Therefore, it's a clitic.   But is a clitic a word?   And,
for that matter, are English articles like "a", "an" and "the"
actually clitics, or are they words?   It's a thorny issue
that most just sweep under the rug, because if you get
bogged down in it, you won't be able to get anywhere
else.

Incidentally (and I feel embarrassed for asking this, 'cause
it seems like I should know), is Nindic a priori or aposteriori?

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Reply