Fwd: how to deal with compounds?

[Monica Macaulay]

Thanks, Robert!  I'm taking the liberty of forwarding this to the  
list so that everyone can see it.

- Monica

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert M Leavitt <rleavitt at unb.ca>
> Date: March 12, 2006 4:59:39 PM CST
> To: Monica Macaulay <mmacaula at WISC.EDU>
> Subject: Re: how to deal with compounds?
>
> hi monica - we separate preverbs and prenouns with a hyphen when  
> the rest of
> the word can stand alone. likewise, we join particles to the  
> preceding word
> with a hyphen when they do not occur independently. (i doubt that  
> we are
> entirely consistent!) see the website for examples -
>
> http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/Maliseet/dictionary/
>
> robert
>
>
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's a question that we've been struggling with, that I'd love some
>> input and advice on.  (As always, we will ask the community, but
>> until we can do that I thought it would help to get some linguists'
>> input to clarify our thinking.)  I'm trying to figure out how to
>> graphically represent compounds in Menominee - just as in English,
>> they could be written as one word, hyphenated, or written as two  
>> words.
>>
>> Our first observation is that Bloomfield makes a distinction between
>> "loose" and "stem" compounds in his grammar of Menominee, and writes
>> all of them with a hyphen between the two members (this from his
>> chapter 13).  Here's some info on his classification:
>>
>> Loose compounds:  order is fixed, combinations are limited, most of
>> the particles occur only in these combinations.  Other words can
>> intervene (e.g. taeh 'and', etc.)  His subcategories (using colon for
>> vowel length; <ae> for his epsilon):
>> * preN-(prefix)-N (e.g. oske:h-mahkae:senan 'new shoes'
>> * particle-demonstrative (e.g. e:h-ayom 'this one here')
>> * postverbal -aeh (e.g. pianon-aeh 'come then' - "postponed command")
>> * particle compounds (e.g. ta:q-nakah 'in what direction is it?')
>>
>> Stem compounds:  take prefixes (outside compound - cf. prenoun-N
>> above), initial change, inflectional suffixes; differ from simple
>> words because each member is treated like a separate word in terms of
>> internal combination (morphophonemics).
>> * N-N (e.g. ase:kan-wiahkwan 'straw hat')
>> * V-N (e.g. me:ka:hkow-enae:niw 'fighter man:  prize fighter')
>> * particle-N (e.g. kaeqc-enae:niw 'old man')
>> --> this confuses us, since kaeqc- is listed as a prenoun in the
>> Lexicon; we need to see what would happen if you put a prefix on it
>> * N-pronoun (e.g. enae:niw-aya:h 'one of the male sex')
>> * (prefix)-preverb-V (e.g. keke:s-nae:wa:q 'have you seen him?')
>>
>> Bloomfield says that stem compounds have "open juncture" (i.e. like
>> words in a phrase) but does not mention juncture in the loose
>> compounds.  We think they also have open juncture.
>>
>> I think we have a number of different kinds of things here, but as
>> always we have to figure out how to separate our linguistic analysis
>> from what we put in the dictionary; the latter has to be the thing
>> that is most useful to speakers and learners (and, we hope, without
>> confusing linguists in the process).
>>
>> At one point I wanted a single principle for all kinds of compounds,
>> and just assumed that we would define 'compound' the same way that
>> Bloomfield does.  But now I'm realizing that that's too simplistic.
>> In some cases I think we have to write them the way they've "always"
>> been written; i.e. the way people are used to them.  In other cases
>> there isn't a set way to write them and there are various factors
>> that we could consider.  So here's a sample:
>>
>> Write with hyphen:
>> * preN-N, preV-V [tradition]
>> * compounds involving "little words" (particles, pronouns; so e.g.
>> e:h-ayom, pianon-aeh) [sort of for tradition; also because the little
>> words are bound]
>>
>> Not sure how to write:
>> * compound composed of two lexical categories, e.g. NN or VN [here,
>> my gut reaction is to write them without a hyphen, but Marianne (my
>> cocompiler) thinks they should have them.  An argument in favor of
>> having them, which I confess I came up with even though I don't like
>> the conclusion, is that it would give the reader a visual clue that
>> the two words form a unit, aiding in parsing.  This would be
>> especially useful for the ones with verbs.]
>> * particle compounds [these are similar to the above because,
>> again, the particles *can* stand alone.]
>>
>> So, what do you (y'all) think?  How are you handling this in your
>> dictionaries?
>>
>> - Monica
>>
>>
>> Monica Macaulay
>> Department of Linguistics
>> University of Wisconsin
>> 1168 Van Hise Hall; 1220 Linden Drive
>> Madison, WI  53706
>> phone (608) 262-2292; fax (608) 265-3193
>> http://ling.wisc.edu/~macaulay/monica.html
>
> Robert M Leavitt, Professor
> Director, Mi'kmaq-Maliseet Institute
> Faculty of Education
> University of New Brunswick
> Fredericton, NB, Canada
>
>

Monica Macaulay
Department of Linguistics
University of Wisconsin
1168 Van Hise Hall; 1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI  53706
phone (608) 262-2292; fax (608) 265-3193
http://ling.wisc.edu/~macaulay/monica.html



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/algonqdict/attachments/20060312/4aa8b872/attachment.htm>