<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
I believe that John is suggesting that the order is<br>
<br>
Inflection (person marking: stem-initial y of ya replaced by bl etc.: ya
> bla)<br>
Reduplication (bla > blabla)<br>
<br>
Then my guess would be that ablaut (final a > e) follows this, applying
as usual to the final syllable of the ablauting stem (blabla > blable).<br>
<br>
Certainly if ablaut came before reduplication, we'd get bleble. Perhaps there
are very short ablauting verbs that give such a result (I can't think of
any). But I bet such verbs do not start with y!<br>
<br>
If ablaut is inflectional, this example shows is that ablaut must a later
inflectional process than person marking. (This is thus another case which
in which the two reduplicated elements are less than perfectly similar to
each other.)<br>
<br>
I hope this makes sense. I am after all only a closet Siouanist wannabe....<br>
<br>
Thanks again to all of you for your incredibly thought-provoking help.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
ROOD DAVID S wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midPine.GSO.4.40.0308032007100.5841-100000@spot.colorado.edu">
<pre wrap="">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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rood@colorado.edu">rood@colorado.edu</a>
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Koontz John E wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Pamela Munro wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>