[Lexicog] sub-morphemic particles??

[Richard Rhodes]

A very long time ago, John Lawler and I published 
an article in CLS 17 on this phenomenon called 
Athematic Metaphors. It included careful analyses 
of paradigms (or near paradigms) of the sort Dave 
Tuggy laid out. In that article we addressed the 
concerns that Ron raises, i.e., that only about 
50% of the forms are analyzable. But we pointed 
out that the vast majority of forms one 
intuitively wants to subject to this kind of 
analysis lack etymologies (or have very shallow 
ones). That fact in itself cries out for 
explanation.

During my recent sabbatical in Austria I started 
working on German words in schV-, which look like 
they are amenable to this kind of analysis. (Many 
English shV- and sc(r)V-/skV- crucially have 
surfaces in their semantic description, so I 
thought that German, which did not split this 
class might do the same. In fact, what appears to 
be the case is that German has two centers of 
meaning associated with schV-. There is one 
radial category involving surfaces and 2D objects 
-- protective surfaces -- protection that 
encompasses about 30% of the forms

(Schal, Schorf, schöpfen, Schote, Schuppe, 
schüren, Schürze, Schirm, Schutz, u.a.)

and a second that has to do with negative affect that encompasses another 30%,

(Schaden, Scham, Scheiß, Schuft, Schuld, schummeln, Schund, Schuppen, u.a.)

with 40% being unanalyzable. That's about par for 
the course. The work is still in its infancy. We 
haven't done enough with the rhymes yet to know 
where that will go, so we don't have the good 
contrasts with rhymes like


	bump	unmarked

	hump	big(ger) bump

	lump	essentially removable bump


Margaret Manus does something more abstract than 
we do. I'm sympathetic, but I believe there is a 
lot more that can be done concretely with a 
better semantics. (For example, we discovered 
that schieben implies the moving object must be 
in contact with a surface, something heretofore 
unnoticed -- and not true of the English cognate 
shove.)

Rich Rhodes

>Beware! There are some who compare all the rare 
>and solitaire pairs of words and declare they 
>share some component. Coincidence! Their 
>arguments are threadbare affairs. Blare and 
>glare may scare you. But welfare and repair mean 
>I care. When did you ever have a fair nightmare? 
>Do mares flare? You can cruelly snare an 
>innocent hare. Where does a hare live? In a 
>lair? How do children fare in childcare? I may 
>stare at the way you wear your hair. If my heir 
>dares to swear I may despair. If he does, I'll 
>impair his bare behind. You can repair a stair 
>or tear down a chair. You can pare a pair of 
>pears.
>
>I dare you to use your software to find where 
>there are square paradigms. Prepare your pairs. 
>Air your views. Spare no expense. If there is a 
>pattern, I'm not aware of it. So there!
>
>
>
>Ron Moe
>
>
>
>
>From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com 
>[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On 
>Behalf Of Fritz Goerling
>Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:32 AM
>To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [Lexicog] sub-morphemic particles??
>
>
>
>What if this is coincidence?
>
>
>
>Can you "spare" me a dime? ;-)
>
>Can we "share?"
>
>
>
>Nothing threatening in that, unless said baring one's teeth,
>
>Fritz
>
>
>
>
>
>Or even "dare"-- to (intensely) compel someone 
>to do something they're uncomfortable with?
>Kim
>
>Fritz Goerling wrote:
>
>>Alan,
>>
>>
>>
>>Would "to bare" fit: Š to bare one's teeth threateningly enough Š?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Fritz Goerling
>>
>>Last Saturday, talking about how hot the sun 
>>had been when I went jogging that afternoon, I 
>>said that the sun had "blared" at me the whole 
>>time. Then thinking about what I had just said, 
>>I corrected myself - "no, I think the word is 
>>"glared". But that slip-up made me wonder if 
>>there's some real connection between the 
>>following words:
>>
>>
>>
>>blare - for something (like a radio) to make a 
>>sound intense enough that you want to plug your 
>>ears
>>
>>glare - for something (like the sun) to emit 
>>light bright enough that you need to squint or 
>>close your eyes
>>
>>stare - for someone to look at you intently 
>>enough to make you feel uncomfortable
>>
>>
>>
>>They all seem to share the idea of an intensity 
>>that's too intense for comfort. And they all 
>>share that a-r-e ending. What would you call 
>>that piece of the word? Is it a morpheme? Or 
>>maybe something on a sub-morphemic level?
>>
>>
>>
>>It would be interesting to know if anything 
>>along these lines has been researched. It might 
>>shed some light on things I've seen in 
>>Austronesian languages - things which also 
>>sometimes seem to carry meaning on a level 
>>below that of the morpheme.
>>
>>
>>
>>Allan J.
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/697 
>- Release Date: 2/22/2007 11:55 AM
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/697 
>- Release Date: 2/22/2007 11:55 AM
>
>


-- 
******************************************************************

  Richard A. Rhodes
  Department of Linguistics
  University of California
  Berkeley, CA 94720-2650
  Voice (510) 643-7325
  FAX (510) 643-5688

******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070223/441385fe/attachment.htm>