Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    Germans writing in German (as opposed to dropping Latin phrases in) these days tend to use Endung for the conjugational affixes in the perfect and  Suffix
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Germans writing in German (as opposed to dropping Latin phrases in) these days
      tend to use "Endung" for the conjugational affixes in the perfect and "Suffix"
      for the pronominal suffixes. "Afformative" is a Germanism in English, and I
      don't recall Dennis using "sufformative" and "preformative," but they seem
      equally foreign.

      Eng. "affix" is the cover term for prefix, suffix, and infix; "ending" is
      usually a non-technical equivalent of "suffix" but the ending/suffix distinction
      could be convenient. It falls down, though, because "prefix," needed just as
      much in Semitic, has no "ending"-like counterpart.

      As for the original question, "pronominal suffix" is superior.--
      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
      Jersey City




      ________________________________
      From: Frank Polak <frankha@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, January 1, 2011 6:55:50 AM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal
      suffix"

      Dear Reinhard,

      In a linguistic discussion I would prefer "suffixed pronoun." In 
      didactic discourse one uses whatever works.
      The terms I use are "object/dative/possessive suffix."
      The point is, I  think, that the suffixed pronoun has the function of, 
      and is exchangeable with an independent pronoun (or particle-pronoun) 
      or a noun phrase in the same syntactic slot.
      It is not exchangeable with the endings of the suffixtenses, for they 
      occupy a different slot (subject).
      Although, I tend to agree that in Akkadian the stative endings are 
      "nominative suffixes".
      In Ugaritic/Phoenician/Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic that is a different 
      matter, although this view could (and should)
      be maintained for stative QaTiL/QaTuL/QaTaL (paris/parus).

      As to a suffix:
      affigo/suffigo have the part. affixus/suffixus (I looked it up), 
      attached. So a suffix(ed) pronoun (pronomen suffixum) is identified as 
      attachment.
      But it is not interchangeable with attached particles (enclitics).

      And now that I looked it up:
      Ewald (Grammatica Critica Linguae Arabicae ง367) has it: Pronomina 
      Suffixa
      Gesenius (Ausf�hrliches Lehrgeba�de, ง 56-57) has Pronomen Personale 
      Separatum as against P.P. Suffixum.
      Bauer_Leander have Pronomen Suffixum as against "Selbstไndiges 
      Personalpronomen, and similarly Jo�on (the French edition) and 
      Brockelmann (Arabische Grammatik).
      That is where I stopped.
      Von Soden has "Pronominalsuffixe"/Selbstไndige Personalpronomina"
      Van der Merwe/Naud้/Kroeze (Reference Grammar) speak of "Pronominal 
      Suffixes",
      As always, Noeldeke is most interesting: in his Syriac Grammar he has 
      "Subjektsformen" der Pronomina, Enclitische Formen an Part. und 
      Adjektiv (which we also have in post-biblical Hebrew), 
      Possessivsuffixa and Objektsuffixa. But there is an adder under
      the grass, for suffixa is sc. pronomina! I suppose that is the origin 
      of pronominalsuffixe and "Pronominal Suffixes" etc.

      Once again,

      A happy New Year. May 2011 help us forget 2010!

      Frank

      On 01/01/2011, at 11:57, R. Lehmann wrote:

      > Frank,
      > wouldn't that mean the the correct term could only be "SuffixED 
      > pronoun"?
      > Actually I prefer pronominal suffix, esp. in contrast to 
      > conjugational suffixes as are suggested in Ugaritic, where many 
      > scholars even in German speak of Suffix Conjugation instead of 
      > Afformativ Conjugation or the like. At least pronominal suffix works 
      > much better when teaching Hebrew, Aramaic or Phoenician, at least in 
      > Germany...
      > What's a suffix at all?
      >
      > Happy New Year,
      > Reinhard

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Christophe Batsch
      Chers amis du 1er janvier, il mes paraît utile de conserver la distinction entre le cas-sujet (pronom suffixe ou suffixé) et les cas objets (suffixe ou
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Chers amis du 1er janvier,
        il mes paraît utile de conserver la distinction entre le cas-sujet (pronom suffixe ou suffixé) et les cas objets (suffixe ou flexion pronominal-e).
        Les expressions du type "préformante" ou "afformante" seraient alors réservées aux agglutinations non pronominales.
        Bonne année à tous
        Christophe Batsch
        Prof d'hébreu et d'araméen
        Lille, Paris








        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        From: grammatim@...
        Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 05:32:17 -0800
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"






        Germans writing in German (as opposed to dropping Latin phrases in) these days
        tend to use "Endung" for the conjugational affixes in the perfect and "Suffix"
        for the pronominal suffixes. "Afformative" is a Germanism in English, and I
        don't recall Dennis using "sufformative" and "preformative," but they seem
        equally foreign.

        Eng. "affix" is the cover term for prefix, suffix, and infix; "ending" is
        usually a non-technical equivalent of "suffix" but the ending/suffix distinction
        could be convenient. It falls down, though, because "prefix," needed just as
        much in Semitic, has no "ending"-like counterpart.

        As for the original question, "pronominal suffix" is superior.--
        Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
        Jersey City

        ________________________________
        From: Frank Polak <frankha@...>
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, January 1, 2011 6:55:50 AM
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal
        suffix"

        Dear Reinhard,

        In a linguistic discussion I would prefer "suffixed pronoun." In
        didactic discourse one uses whatever works.
        The terms I use are "object/dative/possessive suffix."
        The point is, I think, that the suffixed pronoun has the function of,
        and is exchangeable with an independent pronoun (or particle-pronoun)
        or a noun phrase in the same syntactic slot.
        It is not exchangeable with the endings of the suffixtenses, for they
        occupy a different slot (subject).
        Although, I tend to agree that in Akkadian the stative endings are
        "nominative suffixes".
        In Ugaritic/Phoenician/Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic that is a different
        matter, although this view could (and should)
        be maintained for stative QaTiL/QaTuL/QaTaL (paris/parus).

        As to a suffix:
        affigo/suffigo have the part. affixus/suffixus (I looked it up),
        attached. So a suffix(ed) pronoun (pronomen suffixum) is identified as
        attachment.
        But it is not interchangeable with attached particles (enclitics).

        And now that I looked it up:
        Ewald (Grammatica Critica Linguae Arabicae ง367) has it: Pronomina
        Suffixa
        Gesenius (Ausf�hrliches Lehrgeba�de, ง 56-57) has Pronomen Personale
        Separatum as against P.P. Suffixum.
        Bauer_Leander have Pronomen Suffixum as against "Selbstไndiges
        Personalpronomen, and similarly Jo�on (the French edition) and
        Brockelmann (Arabische Grammatik).
        That is where I stopped.
        Von Soden has "Pronominalsuffixe"/Selbstไndige Personalpronomina"
        Van der Merwe/Naud้/Kroeze (Reference Grammar) speak of "Pronominal
        Suffixes",
        As always, Noeldeke is most interesting: in his Syriac Grammar he has
        "Subjektsformen" der Pronomina, Enclitische Formen an Part. und
        Adjektiv (which we also have in post-biblical Hebrew),
        Possessivsuffixa and Objektsuffixa. But there is an adder under
        the grass, for suffixa is sc. pronomina! I suppose that is the origin
        of pronominalsuffixe and "Pronominal Suffixes" etc.

        Once again,

        A happy New Year. May 2011 help us forget 2010!

        Frank

        On 01/01/2011, at 11:57, R. Lehmann wrote:

        > Frank,
        > wouldn't that mean the the correct term could only be "SuffixED
        > pronoun"?
        > Actually I prefer pronominal suffix, esp. in contrast to
        > conjugational suffixes as are suggested in Ugaritic, where many
        > scholars even in German speak of Suffix Conjugation instead of
        > Afformativ Conjugation or the like. At least pronominal suffix works
        > much better when teaching Hebrew, Aramaic or Phoenician, at least in
        > Germany...
        > What's a suffix at all?
        >
        > Happy New Year,
        > Reinhard

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Douglas Petrovich
        Bob, The prof I had for Middle and Late Egyptian at a well-established university, who also was trained in Demotic and Hieratic, consistently used suffix
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Bob,

          The prof I had for Middle and Late Egyptian at a well-established university, who also was trained in Demotic and Hieratic, consistently used "suffix pronoun" as opposed to "pronominal suffix", so it is no surprise to me what you experienced with this Demotist. This seems to be the preference among Egyptologists, and there are few things more powerful than inertia with an attitude.

          And incidentally, and possibly non-coincidentally, this prof revealed his hatred of English grammar when once our discussion digressed from Egyptian grammar to English grammar. The amazing thing to see was his supreme gift at handling Egyptian grammar vs. his distain and lack of confidence when turning to English grammar.

          Technically speaking, "suffix pronoun" features two nouns, and thus is grammatically incorrect in English. The only legitimate alternative would be to hyphenate the words ("suffix-pronoun"), which essentially is the cowardly way out. So, one is left to ask, "Is it a suffix, or is it a pronoun?" This is what has led several of our respondents to suggest "suffixed pronoun" as a viable alternative.

          In reference to one of your other comments along these lines, I would suggest to you that the two grammatically acceptable choices ("suffix pronoun" not being one of them) are indeed completely interchangeable, and that there is NO matter of using one or the other to stress the pronoun or the noun. This is an artificial notion.

          The only other matter worth mentioning is that the respondent who prefers "suffixed pronoun" likely reveals the "gut feeling" of most native English speakers who are neither familiar or comfortable with the established pronominal form for the word pronoun, which--in this case-happens to be the word "pronominal".

          Why abandon the established form for the one chosen? Many of us are just not comfortable using what is so unfamiliar. Honestly, though, most of us do the same with a wide variety of other adjectives, as well. For example, we tend to say "participle form" over "participial form", and so on. This is just a lack of discipline leading to a dumbing down.

          We, as academics, do not like to associate ourselves with a derogatory term such as "dumbing down", but the reality is that we also are guilty of this in numerous ways, despite our love for precision and erudition. Part of humility, however, is being willing to call a spade a spade, even when it may be self-incriminating.

          Hoping this helps,

          Doug Petrovich
          Toronto, CA

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Peter T. Daniels
          There is absolutely no reason not to use a noun-noun collocation in English! For instance rye bread, arithmetic book. (In the latter you can see that it s two
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            There is absolutely no reason not to use a noun-noun collocation in English! For
            instance rye bread, arithmetic book. (In the latter you can see that it's two
            nouns because "arithmetic" is pronounced with its noun stress aRITHmetic and not
            its adjective stress arithMETic.) (Note also noun stress, not nominal stress;
            adjective stress, not adjectival stress.) Compare physics textbook, which could
            be either a physical textbook or a virtual textbook.

            Note also that "pronoun suffix" was not considered in the original study -- cf.
            gender suffix (not generic suffix), number suffix (not numeric(al) suffix).
             --
            Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
            Jersey City




            ________________________________
            From: Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>
            To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sat, January 1, 2011 2:20:50 PM
            Subject: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"

             
            Bob,

            ...
             
            Technically speaking, "suffix pronoun" features two nouns, and thus is
            grammatically incorrect in English. The only legitimate alternative would be to
            hyphenate the words ("suffix-pronoun"), which essentially is the cowardly way
            out. So, one is left to ask, "Is it a suffix, or is it a pronoun?" This is what
            has led several of our respondents to suggest "suffixed pronoun" as a viable
            alternative.
             
            ...

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • R. Lehmann
            ... Amusing. At least myself never use Endung , because it is in such an extent unspecific always someone will confuse it with anything that makes a word
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Am 01.01.2011 um 14:32 schrieb Peter T. Daniels:

              > Germans writing in German (as opposed to dropping Latin phrases in) these days
              > tend to use "Endung" for the conjugational affixes in the perfect and "Suffix"
              > for the pronominal suffixes.
              >
              >
              Amusing. At least myself never use "Endung", because it is in such an extent unspecific always someone will confuse it with anything that makes a word longer than its lexical entry (plural, locale, whatever you want). "Endung" in my opinion is entirely useless.
              > "Afformative" is a Germanism in English, and I
              > don't recall Dennis using "sufformative" and "preformative," but they seem
              > equally foreign.
              >
              Sorry, but "Afformativ" (though it will turn to an Germansim in English - any problem?) sounds perfect in contrast to preformative ("Präformativ") as being the main formative element of the verbal conjugation attached pre- and accordingly after the root. Ok, the better would fit "Sufformative", but I am afraid it will be a long way for the term to be accepted, at least in German ("Präformativ" and "Sufformativ"? Sounds strange ... or better tosay "postformative"?).

              > Eng. "affix" is the cover term for prefix, suffix, and infix; "ending" is
              > usually a non-technical equivalent of "suffix" but the ending/suffix distinction
              > could be convenient. It falls down, though, because "prefix," needed just as
              > much in Semitic, has no "ending"-like counterpart.
              >
              Right. But practical language use has long since undermined etymology, at least in German, because there also is an (old) loan word "affigieren" which means "to attach something to (at the end)"...

              Am 01.01.2011 um 15:27 schrieb Christophe Batsch:

              > il mes paraît utile de conserver la distinction entre le cas-sujet (pronom suffixe ou suffixé) et les cas objets (suffixe ou flexion pronominal-e).
              > Les expressions du type "préformante" ou "afformante" seraient alors réservées aux agglutinations non pronominales.
              >

              d'accord!


              ¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
              Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann
              Academic Director
              Research Unit on Ancient Hebrew & Epigraphy
              FB 01/ Faculty of Protestant Theology
              Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz
              D-55099 Mainz
              Germany
              lehmann@...
              http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de
              http://www.ev.theologie.uni-mainz.de/297.php
              Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis (SILO):
              http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/182.php
              10th Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH):
              http://www.micah.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/204.php



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Peter T. Daniels
              s.u.  -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon.net Jersey City ________________________________ From: R. Lehmann To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                s.u.
                 --
                Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                Jersey City




                ________________________________
                From: R. Lehmann <lehmann@...>
                To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 7:42:45 AM
                Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal
                suffix"

                 
                Am 01.01.2011 um 14:32 schrieb Peter T. Daniels:

                > Germans writing in German (as opposed to dropping Latin phrases in) these days

                > tend to use "Endung" for the conjugational affixes in the perfect and "Suffix"

                > for the pronominal suffixes.
                >
                >
                Amusing. At least myself never use "Endung", because it is in such an extent
                unspecific always someone will confuse it with anything that makes a word longer
                than its lexical entry (plural, locale, whatever you want). "Endung" in my
                opinion is entirely useless.
                > "Afformative" is a Germanism in English, and I
                > don't recall Dennis using "sufformative" and "preformative," but they seem
                > equally foreign.
                >
                Sorry, but "Afformativ" (though it will turn to an Germansim in English - any
                problem?)

                 
                Well, yes! German and English are different languages with more than two
                centuries of separate development of philological and linguistic terminology.
                 
                sounds perfect in contrast to preformative ("Präformativ") as being the main
                formative element of the verbal conjugation attached pre- and accordingly after
                the root. Ok, the better would fit "Sufformative", but I am afraid it will be a
                long way for the term to be accepted, at least in German ("Präformativ" and
                "Sufformativ"? Sounds strange ... or better tosay "postformative"?).

                > Eng. "affix" is the cover term for prefix, suffix, and infix; "ending" is
                > usually a non-technical equivalent of "suffix" but the ending/suffix
                >distinction
                >
                > could be convenient. It falls down, though, because "prefix," needed just as
                > much in Semitic, has no "ending"-like counterpart.
                >
                Right. But practical language use has long since undermined etymology, at least
                in German, because there also is an (old) loan word "affigieren" which means "to
                attach something to (at the end)"...

                That, you see, is precisely the problem. It's a false friend. "To affix" does
                _not_ mean 'to attach at the end', but simply 'to attach'. You affix a postage
                stamp to a letter, for instance.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Robert M Whiting
                ... No, this is not true. Essentially, any English noun can be used as an adjective (and vice versa). Indeed, some grammarians do not distinguish noun and
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Douglas Petrovich wrote:

                  > Technically speaking, "suffix pronoun" features two nouns, and thus is
                  > grammatically incorrect in English.

                  No, this is not true. Essentially, any English noun can be used as an
                  adjective (and vice versa). Indeed, some grammarians do not distinguish
                  noun and adjective at this level and subsume both under "substantives".
                  In any case, "noun" and "adjective" are function labels (not "functional
                  labels") and whether a given substantive functions as a noun or an
                  adjective depends entirely on its use in its own context. If you object
                  to "suffix pronoun" on grammatical grounds, then you must also object to
                  "brain damage", "heart disease", and "lung cancer" on grammatical grounds
                  because "brain", "heart", and "lung" are all clearly nouns. So it is the
                  attributive use of "suffix" in "suffix pronoun" that makes it an
                  adjective, not any immutable characterization assigned to it at birth.

                  "Suffix pronoun" is a morphological category in contradistinction to
                  "independent pronoun". As such, it serves a useful purpose in
                  classification systems, but outside of this function the concept is better
                  expressed by either "suffixed pronoun" or "pronominal suffix". I usually
                  avoid the classifcation problem by referring to "bound forms" or "free
                  forms" of the personal pronouns.

                  > The only legitimate alternative would be to hyphenate the words
                  > ("suffix-pronoun"), which essentially is the cowardly way out.

                  No, hyphenation (or conjoining) is used to indicate that the collocation
                  is a single stress unit rather than two stress units. It is the difference
                  between "black bird" and "blackbird". Here there is a dialectal preference
                  operating in that British English often writes a single stress unit as two
                  words while American English tends to hyphenate it. Similarly, words that
                  Americans would write as a single word the British tend to hyphenate.
                  Otherwise, one would not write an adjective-noun collation comprising two
                  stress units with a hyphen unless the entire unit were being used as an
                  adjective (e.g., "paintings of the seventeenth century", but
                  "seventeenth-century paintings").

                  > So, one is left to ask, "Is it a suffix, or is it a pronoun?"

                  Presumably, then, when encountering an expression such as "paper clip",
                  one is left to ask "is it a paper, or is it a clip?" -- is a "paper clip"
                  a clip for papers or is it a clip made out of paper. Such conumdrums as
                  "wood stove" or "picture window" must leave one completely
                  baffled, befuddled, and bewildered.

                  > This is what has led several of our respondents to suggest "suffixed
                  > pronoun" as a viable alternative.

                  No, what leads to the suggestion of "suffixed pronoun" is the fact that
                  while "suffix pronoun" is fine as a morphological classification or
                  category, once you use a suffix pronoun it becomes a suffixed pronoun. A
                  "suffix pronoun" is a pronoun that has the form of a suffix or can only be
                  used as a suffix. A "suffixed pronoun" is a pronoun that has been used as
                  a suffix. When speaking of morphological categories, "suffix pronoun" is
                  a quite acceptable term; when speaking of actual usage, the term "suffixed
                  pronoun" or "pronominal suffix" is usually more appropriate.

                  > In reference to one of your other comments along these lines, I would
                  > suggest to you that the two grammatically acceptable choices ("suffix
                  > pronoun" not being one of them) are indeed completely interchangeable,
                  > and that there is NO matter of using one or the other to stress the
                  > pronoun or the noun. This is an artificial notion.

                  In order to make sense of this I will assume that by "noun" in the
                  next-to-last sentence you meant "suffix".

                  I'm sorry, but this is hardly an "artificial notion". It is distiction
                  that that is fundamental to English grammar, and particularly syntax. A
                  noun is the name of something; as such it serves as the subject or object
                  of the verb. Almost all English sentences are about what the noun does or
                  has done to it. In any case, the noun is what is being talked about in an
                  English sentence that has both a noun and a verb. When one uses the
                  expression "suffix pronoun" or "suffixed pronoun" one is talking about
                  pronouns, because that's what the noun is; when one uses the expression
                  "pronominal suffix" one is talking about suffixes because that's what the
                  noun is. Now it is true that a "suffix(ed) pronoun" is a pronoun that has
                  the form of or is used as a suffix and that a "pronominal suffix" is a
                  suffix that represents a pronoun, so there is little distinction in the
                  meaning; but which one is more appropriate in any particular context
                  depends on whether you are talking about pronouns or suffixes. You seem
                  to have a very tenuous grasp on English grammar. Just out of curiosity,
                  what is your native language?

                  > The only other matter worth mentioning is that the respondent who
                  > prefers "suffixed pronoun" likely reveals the "gut feeling" of most
                  > native English speakers who are neither familiar or comfortable with the
                  > established pronominal form for the word pronoun, which--in this
                  > case-happens to be the word "pronominal".

                  I find this to be incomprehensible. The only assuption that allows it to
                  make sense is that for "established pronominal form" you meant
                  "established adjectival form", but that just yields a fairly long-winded
                  statement that most English speakers don't like the word "pronominal".
                  Since there is no evidence offered for the assertion that a majority of
                  native speakers don't like this word, it still makes no sense.

                  > Why abandon the established form for the one chosen? Many of us are just
                  > not comfortable using what is so unfamiliar. Honestly, though, most of
                  > us do the same with a wide variety of other adjectives, as well. For
                  > example, we tend to say "participle form" over "participial form", and
                  > so on. This is just a lack of discipline leading to a dumbing down.

                  Whether "participle form" or "participial form" is more appropriate
                  depends entirely on whether one is talking about participle forms or
                  participial forms. Similarly, it should also be noted that "pronoun
                  suffix" and "pronominal suffix" do not mean the same thing. A "pronominal
                  suffix" is a suffix used to express a pronoun while a "pronoun suffix" is
                  a suffix used with pronouns (in much the same way as a paper clip is a
                  clip used for papers).


                  Bob Whiting
                  whiting@...
                • Peter T. Daniels
                  Actually, in Latin grammar the substantive and the adjective are the two kinds of noun.  -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon.net Jersey City
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Actually, in Latin grammar the substantive and the adjective are the two kinds
                    of noun.
                     --
                    Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                    Jersey City




                    ________________________________
                    From: Robert M Whiting <whiting@...>
                    To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 12:30:50 PM
                    Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal
                    suffix"

                     
                    On Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Douglas Petrovich wrote:

                    > Technically speaking, "suffix pronoun" features two nouns, and thus is
                    > grammatically incorrect in English.

                    No, this is not true. Essentially, any English noun can be used as an
                    adjective (and vice versa). Indeed, some grammarians do not distinguish
                    noun and adjective at this level and subsume both under "substantives".
                    In any case, "noun" and "adjective" are function labels (not "functional
                    labels") and whether a given substantive functions as a noun or an
                    adjective depends entirely on its use in its own context.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Frank Polak
                    Please, let me return to the Latin. The latin passive participle suffixum means attached , suffixed if you want. In Noeldeke s usage it is shorthand for
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Please, let me return to the Latin. The latin passive participle
                      suffixum means "attached",
                      "suffixed" if you want. In Noeldeke's usage it is shorthand for
                      "pronomen suffixum" or
                      suffix(ed) pronoun. The alternative "bound" or "free" form seems
                      preferable in linguistic
                      context.

                      Best regards,

                      Frank Polak
                      Tel Aviv University

                      On 02/01/2011, at 19:30, Robert M Whiting wrote:
                      > "Suffix pronoun" is a morphological category in contradistinction to
                      > "independent pronoun". As such, it serves a useful purpose in
                      > classification systems, but outside of this function the concept is
                      > better
                      > expressed by either "suffixed pronoun" or "pronominal suffix". I
                      > usually
                      > avoid the classifcation problem by referring to "bound forms" or "free
                      > forms" of the personal pronouns.
                      >
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.