Alec Marantz: Noun Compounding Question (reply to Rolf Noyer)

[Martha McGinnis]

I just want to clarify something about Rolf's reply, just in case readers
of this List think that there is a DM orthodoxy or party line.  When Rolf
writes, "the DM analysis is," he means the DM analysis of the difference
between "mice" and "rats" with respect to plural formation.  The analysis
Rolf suggests for the prohibition against plural -s in compounds, in terms
of the size of the syntactic constituent that may appear inside compounds,
is possible in DM but is not demanded from any basic assumptions, as far as
I can see.  What DM does demand is the distinction between stem allomorphy
and the Vocabulary Items that actually "spell out" the features of
morphemes, such as plural.  So DM forces an analysis of regular vs.
irregular plurals that provides the basis for Rolf's analysis of the
prohibition inside compounds, but it doesn't force Rolf's analysis, for
which he should be given credit (or blame).


marantz at mit.edu