syncretism w/o paradigms

[Andrew Nevins]

Hello All (esp. John):

>
>I admire Andrew's strong feelings about what would and would not
>be bizarre about the way the brain does linguistic computations.
>That aside, he misunderstood my own hunch about the way things
>work.

A clarification: My message was a response to Martha, and
an elaboration on her reference to why I thought Impoverishment
happened at a Node. It was not a response to John's hunch;
I don't know what that was and I didn't read his original message.

That said, the points you make are interesting, John. I will
see if they work in their entirety and have to think about extrinsic
ordering of Impoverishment rules a little longer.

--AIN

>I looked at the analysis of Algonquin in the handout mentioned
>above and am not convinced that it provides much evidence that my
>hunch is wrong.  There may be other facts about Algonquin
>morphology that bear on the issue, but on the basis of what you
>have in the handout, it seems to me that the following works
>fine:
>
>    1) Group is deleted in the context of Author.
>    2) Author is deleted in the context of Addressee.
>
>-wa is the Group suffix; the Minimal suffix is null; and /-nan/
>is the default Individuation suffix.
>
>The two impoverishments must be ordered --- whether for a reason
>of the kind Andrew discusses or for some other reason.  It could