suppletion

[Elena A. Arkhipova]

Dear Olga,
I do understand that empirically those forms Frank mentioned could exist. 
What I tried to say is that in case of "vremja - vremeni" (and words alike) 
there is a whole sub-system, so to say, sub-stem. In dialects, as they have 
their own grammar systems, other forms could exist, of course. So I was not 
talking about standarts and rules (though dare say that dialect systems can 
be considered standarts as well). As to suppletion as it is, like 
"rebjonok - deti", I haven't mentioned it.
But the sub-stem in question is a part of the system, and I think even when 
the empirically possible forms appear they look not like a part of regular 
stem.
Thank you for discussion!
Sincerely yours,
Elena.


Elena A. Arkhipova, PhD, MBA
Chair of Department of
Russian as a Foreign Language,
Program Coordinator
Nevsky Institute of  Language and Culture
27 Bolshaya Raznochinnaya
St. Petersburg, 197110, Russia
tel./fax: +7 812 230 36 98

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Olga Meerson" <meersono at GEORGETOWN.EDU>
To: <SEELANGS at bama.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] suppletion


> Dear Elena (Arkhipova)
>
> As I understand it, suppletion is about creating a full paradigm out of 
> something "incorrect" that originates from violating a different, original 
> one, one grammatically accepted and "correct": you start with using 
> skol'ko vremia, instead of vremeni, and end up with trying to use all 
> sorts of forms for a stem not having existed previously --*vreme. The same 
> with ditia. When used "wrongly", it generates a consistency of sorts, 
> beginning to be treated as a feminine noun (e.g.: instr.: ditej; dat. 
> ditiu, etc.). This whole business, Elena, has nothing to do with what 
> standard grammars and textbooks teach as grammar standards. Rather, is, 
> like any sort of good linguistics, is an attempt to understand the logic 
> of what people actually say -- which may easily be qualified as mistakes. 
> Linguistics is about learning methods to madnesses, not to the alleged 
> sanities of what grammarians insist on prescribing as "the correct 
> language".
> I have tried to address not only the definition of the term (which I can 
> only guess at, from the context of what Frank Gladney has said, not being 
> a linguist myself but merely a philologist) but also the philosophical 
> underpinnings of linguistics--what it is all about. Whatever it is, it is 
> certainly not about the standard, correct, and prescribed forms of a 
> language but rather about patterns for their violation empirically found 
> in people's use of it (the language in question). Herein lies the 
> difference between what Frank studies and what you, Elena, teach. You 
> teach Russian as a bunch of rules for correct use. Frank -- like, say, 
> Jakobson whom he cites -- studies Russian as a language EMPIRICALLY used 
> and capable of forming whole paradigms out of various instances of 
> "incorrect usage" -- not what language ought to be but what it is, in 
> dialects and various "illegitimate" but empirically existing forms and 
> versions.
> Frank, I would love to have a clarification of what suppletion really 
> means: everything I have said here is based on my surmises. based in turn 
> on your entry. Perhaps you may enlighten me as to whether I am completely 
> off the mark?
> o.m.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------