<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
From the point of view of English, one doesn't really need the
distinction between prefixes and "compound-only roots", I think.<br>
<br>
(Though perhaps bio-, socio-, geo-, astro- etc. are special in that
they bear stress when combined with -logy, -graphy, -nomy, which is
not the case with prefixes like un-, pro-, pre-, anti-)<br>
<br>
The question of language comparison is different. I have proposed
that a root (as a comparative concept) should be defined as a
minimal form that denotes a thing, an action, or a property
(Haspelmath 2012) – it seems that this corresponds exactly to our
intuition, even though it cannot be applied in all cases in
particular languages. But this is not the purpose of comparative
concepts.<br>
<br>
In Greek, bio-, ge(o)-, and astr(o)- are not restricted (they mean
'life', 'earth', 'star', also outside of compounds), and neither are
anti- (it occurs as a prefix or as a preposition) and auto- (it
occurs as a prefix or as a pronoun or self-intensifier '(s)he; self').<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16.01.19 18:58, Chao Li wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL3Jw8Qf_RyzJJqKaWwBZTZkp0yu=j1hVoofDkaKw=uR47HusA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Dear Colleagues,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">I was wondering
whether I could consult with you on the use of Greek roots
that had been
borrowed into English. For example, <i>bio</i>,
<i>anti</i>, and <i>auto</i> have their origin in Greek.
They are often analyzed as roots
from Greek. However, in English such forms are generally
positionally
restricted and thus are often found in the list of English
affixes (see
Aikhenvald’s (2007: 28) observation that English has some
forms that “are
problematic as to whether they are better analyzed as
roots or as affixes, e.g.
<i>bio- </i>or <i>anthropo</i>-”). <b>I am
wondering whether the counterparts of forms like <i>bio</i>,
<i>anti</i>, and <i>auto</i> are positionally
restricted in
Greek as well</b>. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">More generally, <b>is
it reasonable if we adopt a criterion that
for a bound form to be analyzed as a bound root, it
should be positionally
unrestricted in a polymorphemic word with the meaning of
the morpheme in
question maintained the same in its different uses?</b>
(It appears that such a
criterion works pretty well for Mandarin Chinese). <b>If
not, what is a good criterion for the distinction
between bound
roots and affixes?</b> (The criterion that the former
have content and
the latter do not doesn’t appear to be quite useful.
Moreover, one may adopt
the definition that a bound root is a bound morpheme
denoting a thing, an
action, or a property. If this definition leads to an
analysis of <i>bio</i>, <i>anti</i>,
and <i>auto</i> as bound roots because the
first one denotes a thing and the latter two denote a
property(??), how would
we analyze <i>un-</i> as in <i>unable</i>?) <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Thank you so much in
advance for your input and insight!<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Best regards,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Chao<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">[Aikhenvald, Alexandra
Y. 2007. Typological distinctions in word-formation. In
Timothy Shopen (ed.), <i>Language Typology and Syntactic
Description,
Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon</i>, 2<sup>nd</sup>
edn., 1-65.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]<span></span></span></p>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
Institut fuer Anglistik
IPF 141199
D-04081 Leipzig
</pre>
</body>
</html>