There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
From: R A Brown
1b. Pesky morphemes (was:: Is there an inverse relationship between lexi
From: R A Brown
2.1. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
From: Douglas Koller
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:09 am ((PDT))
On 22/03/2013 08:27, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Gary Shannon wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> How, then, does "unit of meaning" relate to
>> "morpheme"?.
>>
>
> A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of a language.
> It's synonymous with "unit of meaning".
I strongly disagree. As you will have seen from my reply to
Gary, both he and I appear to agree that this is not so.
As for morpheme, I quote Larry Trask (A Dictionary of
Grammatical terms in Linguistics) who defines morpheme as:
"The minimal grammatical unit; the smallest unit which plays
any part in morphology and which cannot be further
decomposed except in phonological or semantic terms."
You will note that Larry Trask says a morpheme may be
decomposed in _semantic_ terms, and so it may. For example
the Latin genitive plural morpheme, with the allomorphs
_ārum, ērum, ōrum, ium, um_, can be decomposed into "plural"
and the various meanings associated in Latin with
"genitive." To maintain that this morpheme corresponds to a
unit of meaning is IMNSHO nonsense.
Of semantics, Trask says:
"The branch of linguistics dealing with the meaning of words
and sentences. The relation between syntax and semantics
and the location of the dividing line between them have
matters of controversy. Several extreme positions have been
held."
That is true - it is a matter of controversy. Trask gives
examples of two extremes, i.e. syntax = semantics, and
syntax and semantics are unrelated. He concludes by saying:
"Most linguists today would probably advocate some kind of
intermediate position in which the two areas are distinct
and make independent requirements but in which the dividing
line is somewhat blurred and each area can have effects on
the other."
Yep - that seems IMO to be about it.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Pesky morphemes (was:: Is there an inverse relationship between lexi
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:24 am ((PDT))
On 22/03/2013 09:09, R A Brown wrote:
> . For example the Latin genitive plural morpheme, with
> the allomorphs _ārum, ērum, ōrum, ium, um_,
OOPS! Morphemes are pesky little critters ;)
I forgot to include the allomorph _uum_ which we find, e.g.
with the noun _manus_ "hand: - genitive plural: mannuum.
Ha, I hear you say, that's manu+um.
That is, of course, true _diachronically_. But if one looks
at all the various forms that _manus_ may take we find some
problems if we accept _manu_ as the morpheme that means "hand".
What do we decompose _manūs_? Do we say that the morpheme
for singular+genitive, plural+nominative, plural+accusative
is: vowel length + s?
Or do we say that the long vowel is the result of a
contraction of the final -u of the stem with the morphemes:
- is (genitive+singular)
- es (nominative+plural)
- ns (accusative+plural)
OK - these may be correct _diachronically_, but it's
stretching things a bit to maintain that this
_synchronically_ the best way of doing things.
And what of the dative and ablative plural _manibus_?
'Tis simpler IMO to regard _man_ as the lexical morpheme,
and _uum_ as the genitive plural of the 4th declension words.
But, if you want to take a more generative approach and
insist that the genitive plural morpheme is just plain _um_
then, indeed, you can come up with an analysis of Latin
which gives the genitive plural morpheme just the two
allomorphs _rum_ and _um_. But you have to add quite a few
rules about what happens when these allomorphs are suffixed
to particular lexical bases.
It still remains as I wrote before that the genitive plural
morpheme
> can be decomposed into "plural" and the various meanings
> associated in Latin with "genitive." To maintain that
> this morpheme corresponds to a unit of meaning is IMNSHO
> nonsense.
Fusional languages, and a good many of them are spoken today
(e.g. Russian, and related Slav languages) pose these lovely
problems about where exactly the boundary between lexical
stem and affix is, and IMO run a horse and cart through the
notion of 1 morpheme = 1 sememe (unit of meaning).
But then it's just these sort of problems that make
languages so fascinating :)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" [email protected]
Date: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:33 am ((PDT))
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:41:42 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
> To: [email protected]
> Jarda similarly has a range of derived nouns, e.g. from "siv":
> sivŏl "teacher"
> sivun "student, learner"
> sivis "education"
> sivag "subject of learning, field of study"
> ("Student" may also be "nünŏl", from the unrelated word "nün" meaning
> "to study")
*Clearly* coming from the Géarthnuns "nün", hortative of "nun", an archaic verb
for "speak" (substantivized in "Géarth*nuns*").
Kou
Messages in this topic (39)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
