7.1159, Disc: Addendum to query on circumfixes

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-7-1159. Fri Aug 16 1996. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  74
 
Subject: 7.1159, Disc: Addendum to query on circumfixes
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu> (On Leave)
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <dseely at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Editor for this issue: dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu (Ann Dizdar)
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:53:54 -0000
From:  delacy at host02.net.voyager.co.nz ("Paul de Lacy")
Subject:  Addendum to Q: Circumfixes
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:53:54 -0000
From:  delacy at host02.net.voyager.co.nz ("Paul de Lacy")
Subject:  Addendum to Q: Circumfixes
 
Greetings,
 
A few days ago I posted a question regarding Circumfixes.  I wanted to
find out if there were any general studies done on them, or more
specific references, etc.  However, my presumption that everyone knows
what a circumfix is has porven to be unfounded.  On the prompting of
one respondent, I have posted this short description of the phenomenon
so that I might get a broader range of replies.
 
On the surface, a circumfix is a combination of a prefix and a suffix.
However, the appearence of the prefixal material and the suffixal
material is mutually obligatory.  In other words, the prefixal part
cannot occur without the suffixal part, and vice-versa.
 Alone, neither part bears meaning.  Or, if it does, the
compositional meaning of the two parts is not equal to the sum of its
parts.  As an example:
Tagalog 'ka...an' = 'the class or group of X':   bukid 'field' >
bukiran 'fields'.
 
The above definition is an 'absolutist' type.  There seem to be
'gradations' of types (for want of a better term).  Thus, German
'ge..t' omits the 'ge' with certain verbs.  At this point, I am
looking for anything that could _possibly_ be a circumfix, even if
it's phonological parts are not always co-present.
 
People's lack of acquaintance with the term 'circumfix' is probably
because it has been largely ignored in morphological theory.  See
Rochelle Lieber's 'Deconstructing Morphology' (1992:155-7) and Laurie
Bauer's 'A descriptive gap in morphology.' in the Yearbook of
Morphology 1988 (pp.17-27).
 
Regards,
 
Paul de Lacy.
University of Auckland.
- ---------====================================-----------
Phone: [New Zealand] 64-9-6271101
E-mail: University: <pvl at antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>
NB MY HOME ADDRESS IS UNRELIABLE.  TO MAKE SURE YOUR
MESSAGE GETS THRU, SEND IT TO THE UNI ADDRESS!!!!!OR BOTH!
           Home: <delacy at voyager.co.nz>
===========------------------------------------===========
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-1159.