[Lexicog] cranberry morphemes and unanalyzable but obviously derived forms

[yahganlang]

Hi. I've got a question of how one deals with cranberry morphemes
and unanalyzable but obviously derived forms in a dictionary
organized around root morphemes and internal reconstruction.

Does one simply list these without comment, or should speculations
about origins of the unanalyzable parts be included?

In Anthony Mattina's Colville-Okanagan dictionary, which is
organized by roots, these forms are just listed as if they were
roots, even including a left-hand radical sign. Yet it is likely
they were not diachronically simple forms at all, whether borrowed,
inherited, or both. There are quite many of them, just as there will
be when the Yahgan dictionary I've been reediting is ready.

What is the safest bet here? How have others here on the List dealt
with them? Thanks.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics at earthlink.net





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/HKE4lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/