double inflection

[ROOD DAVID S]

I don't think I follow this for the Lak. case, at least for iblable.  It
seems to me the derivation (reduplication) has to precede the inflection.
How else would you get the non-ablauted initial syllable of the
reduplication?

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Pamela Munro wrote:
> > Agreed, absolutely. I should have said that. The same would be true of
> > the Siouan forms. That's what makes these so interesting to me. If the
> > morphology does not have a long enough base to do its thing it can look
> > ahead to inflection and borrow something.
> > >
> > >What interests me about this case is that it shows grade formation
> > >operating in some sense, anyway) after (perosnal) inflection.  That's like
> > >the way that dative formation operates after (personal) inflection in
> > >Omaha-Ponca.  Theorists generally hold that inflection follows derivation.
>
> I'm not sure if I worded this clearly.  Were you agreeing that it looked
> like - in this case - the grade formation process would have to be said to
> follow inflection in the process of creation of the form?  That was the
> only way I could get the case of the Omaha-Ponca dative to make sense to
> me.  In other words, while my instincts agree with my education here, and
> I'd expect all derivation to precede all inflection, the grade formation
> process you describe here, and at least the case of the OP reduplication of
> 'to say' look like they require one derivation to follow inflection.
>
> The Omaha-Ponca dative is actually a better example, because it's
> pervasive, and not an isolated case, but it could be argued that dative is
> an inflectional process, rather than a derivational one, though I think
> the instincts of most Siouanists would be that it is derivational, or at
> least "stem forming."  The problem in Omaha-Ponca is just that it's
> difficult to explain the forms exhibited by applying inflection to the
> dative "stem."  In some cases the merger of the locative or pronominal or
> sequence of them with gi- seems to skip syllables that precede its
> ostensible location.
>
> I haven't been able to come up with any arguments that OP dative is
> derivational as opposed to inflectional.  It seems pretty productive, and,
> though there are a couple of cases where the English verbs expressing the
> base and the dative forms are different - e.g., gaNze/giaNze
> 'demonstrate/teach', I don't know that these are especially unpreditable
> and idiomatic.
>
> JEK
>