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
    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 1 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
    • 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 2 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
      • 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 3 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
        • 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 4 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
          • 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 5 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
            • 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 6 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
              • 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.