Carson Schutze: Noun Compounding Question (reply to Alec Marantz)

[Martha McGinnis]

Alec said:

>2.	No matter how many times I read discussions like Rolf's, I can't
>figure out what is meant by:
>
>the compound stem form is always the same as the plural unless it is
>linking -s-
>
>(Rolf is denying that this is true, but my problem is understanding what it
>would mean for it to be true)
>
>That is, when we see the "-s-" in a German compound, how do we know that in
>at least some of the cases this isn't the plural "-s-" (or, given Rolf's
>discussion, at least as much the plural -s- as the plural -er- would be
>when it appears in compounds).  My understanding, which can't be right, is
>that people say that, since -s- occurs with nouns that don't take plural
>-s, all -s-'s in compounds, even with nouns that do take plural -s, can't
>be the plural -s.  What am I missing (other than any knowledge of German,
>which ignorance I'm aware of)?

The generalization is supposed to be stronger than what Alec is assuming.
Quoting again from Clahsen et al. (someone really should go back and check the
primary literature on this),
"the nouns that take the plural -s never appear with that plural inside
compounds".

I believe what they intended this to mean was that nouns that take -s in the
plural never take (any sort of) -s in compounds. If that's right, then not
only are there nouns with non-s plurals that take -s in compounds, but there
are no nouns with -s plurals that do so.

I think that would answer Alec's question, but it of course raises a new
analytic one, namely, what would prevent the *linking* -s from combining with
these nouns? Why should linking -s care what a noun's plural looks like,
especially since linking -s can appear following another plural "affix" (in
traditional terms), e.g.

Herz-en-s-lust   'heart-pl-link-joy'

	Carson

mcginnis at ucalgary.ca