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

195926Re: Pesky morphemes

Expand Messages
  • R A Brown
    Mar 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 28/03/2013 13:30, And Rosta wrote:
      > R A Brown, On 27/03/2013 15:32:
      [snip - all points noted]

      > I agree with the basic idea, but "plus" needs to be
      > tightened up, in ways too complicated to fit in an
      > off-topic email discussion, but in simple terms "{CAR} +
      > [plural]" means "{CAR} when it is the phonological shape
      > corresponding to a plural noun node in syntax.

      'plus' was simply taken from Trask, and being used for
      convenience (i.e. not having to think of something else -
      the same applies to shape of brackets). Trask, of course,
      was merely giving a fairly simple dictionary entry, rather
      than elaborating any particular theoretic viewpoint.

      > In {CHILD} + [plural], the shape of {CHILD} is the stem
      > //tS.I.l.d// + //rn// (roughly), but I don't see any
      > grounds for saying that [Plural] is instantiated as
      > //rn//.

      I don't think we're many miles apart - probably coming at
      things from different angles.

      But I'm not intending at the moment to work out any
      hard-and-fast system - I haven't got time for one thing.

      It seems that it is only you and I now exchanging emails on
      this off-topic discussion, and it has certainly helped clear
      some of my thinking - not enough, perhaps, but it can wait.

      We are, I think, both agreed that morphemes, whatever they
      are, are not identical to "units of meaning", which is what
      sparked off this thread. As I say, I don't think we're
      miles apart.

      "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
      for individual beings and events."
      [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
    • Show all 56 messages in this topic