thy thigh etc.

[Robert Whiting]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Larry Trask wrote:

> --On Sunday, May 13, 2001 11:38 am +0300 Robert Whiting
> <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi> wrote [in his recent PhD thesis ;-) ]

>> But the fact remains that 'ether' is
>> monomorphemic and 'either' is not (even if speakers don't realize
>> it consciously).

> Aw, come on, Bob.  I emphatically deny that 'either' is bimorphemic in
> contemporary English, any more than 'feather' is.  It is *historically*
> bimorphemic, of course, but that observation is neither here nor there.
> Anyway, if we're looking at history, 'ether' is not monomorphemic either:
> it's a transparent derivative of the Greek verbal root <aith-> 'burn'.
> This root gave rise to a number of derivatives in Greek, including the one
> leading to our word 'Ethiopia'.

> By what right can you invoke one etymology but not another, when neither is
> known to native speakers?

But I'm not invoking etymology (except to show that the morpheme boundary
really is there), I'm invoking perceptual categories.  Certainly there is
no productive morpheme boundary in either of these words, and if you read
the posting, then you know that I said as much.  I don't expect naive
native speakers to know about the morpheme boundary in 'either' in the
same way that they know about the morpheme boundary in 'running'.
Similarly, I wouldn't expect your average NNS to know that there is a
morpheme boundary in 'both' or that the 'th' of this word is the same
morpheme as in 'the'.

But whenever there is similarity in meaning, it is possible for speakers
to perceive a morphemic relationship, correct or not.  Thus I would expect
most NNS's to perceive the "-rage" of 'outrage' as the same morpheme as
'rage' (even though it isn't).  Similarly, I would expect them to connect
the "ful-" of 'fulsome' with the morpheme 'full' rather than 'foul'.  And
I wouldn't expect the NNS to connect the "lis-" of 'lissome' with 'lithe'
even if they might be able to connect 'bliss' with 'blithe'.

Try putting it to NNS's like this:

   Which of these words does not belong with the others:

      a) either
      b) other
      c) whether
      d) feather

and see what kind of response you get.  I'd do it myself, but I don't
have access to enough native speakers.  You could even slip it into an
exam and then ask "why?".  I would expect that most speakers would see a-c
as a unit, although it might be a long time before anyone says that they
form a group that all refer to "one thing of two."  Now I certainly
wouldn't expect NNS's to know that the -ther in these words is a reflex of
a PIE comparative suffix.  And, despite the similarity of meanings, I
wouldn't even expect them to know that 'other' and 'hetero-' are not just
anagrams but are cognates.  But I would expect them to be able to
recognize 'either', other', and 'whether' as belonging to the same class
and having a similar meaning.  And when you see similar meanings you tend
to perceive the common element in the words with similar meanings as a
morpheme.

So the answer to your question is that I don't expect them to know the
etymology of either word, but I do expect them to know that 'either'
belongs to a class of words that have similar meanings and share a "-ther"
element and that 'ether' does not belong to this group.  Whether that is
sufficient or not to claim that 'either' and 'ether' is not a minimal
contrast between [T] and [D] or not, I don't know, but this is essentially
beside the point.  The point is that the 'either' : 'ether' contrast has
too many ambivalencies to be unequivocal.  So just pick another example
to establish the contrast of intervocalic [T] and [D].

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi