Re: THEORY: derivation question
From: | Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> |
Date: | Thursday, March 25, 1999, 1:15 |
dunn patrick w wrote:
>
> My lack of linguistic knowledge is showing *tugs his shirt down*. How
> exactly does one go about deriving a word from a root? Is there a system,
> or does one just make sound changes until it looks right?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Derivation is usually based on
affixes, for instance, -al can make nouns into adjectives, as in
_nation_ --> _national_, -ize can make verbs (nationalize) de- can
reverse meaning (denationalize), -ation can make abstract nouns
(denationalization), etc. Notice how the simple root _nation_ has given
long words like _denationalization_. Keep in mind that natural
languages tend to have restrictions on the use of affixes, for instance,
*nationish doesn't exist, even tho -ish is a legitimate suffix. And you
can't say *coloral, even tho -al is a legitimate suffix. Frequently,
origin has to do with it. -al is a Latin ending, and color is not
Latin. But, these are rarely completely consistent. Racial is a
legitimate word, even tho _race_ is Anglo-Saxon (I think), and -al is
Latin. The word _trusteeship_ is a perfect example. Trust is of Norse
origin, -ee is French, and -ship is Anglo-Saxon. The wonders of
linguistic evolution make for this complication, suffixes are often
either broadened in usage, much like how -ation can sometimes be applied
to English roots (starvation, for example), while -ness can be added to
foreign roots, as in plainness, or suffixes can be lost, as for- has
been, surviving only in a few words like _forgive_, _forlorn_, _forbid_,
but it's not productive. One cannot use it to make new words.
--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-name: NikTailor