LL-L "Morphology" 2003.04.20 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 20.APR.2003 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net  * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
 Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or
 sign off at <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Morphology"

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Morphology
>
> Come to think of it, this seems to be a case of nominalized adjectives,
> similar to plural "the poor," "the great," or the _-ese_ morpheme
> as in "one
> Japanese" > "fifteen Japanese."  Note that you can say both "one Navaho" >
> "two Navaho" and "one Navaho" > "two Navahos" or "one Hopi" >
> "two Hopi" and
> "one Hopi" > "two Hopis."  Where plural _-s_ is not used, perhaps
> "persons"
> is implied (e.g., "two Navaho (persons)").

Aha! This explains an email that had me wondering lately,
where the sender used the phrase "many Sheffgoth" (ie,
Sheffield goths). But in another email she used the phrase
"several Sheffgoths"

I wonder if the -ese morpheme is a separate phenomenon?
"The Japanese", yes, but never "*several Japaneses".

Apart from that, is there an implication of subculture in
this usage? Eg, "the Navaho" but not "the Native American"
nor "the Indian". Similarly "the Sheffgoth" but not "the
goth" (as an aside there, I always use lowercase to indicate
goth in the romanticised sense and Goth capitalised for the
historical Goths - they're totally unrelated as far as I can
see). It's hard to see how this would apply to "the Rom" and
"the Inuit" though, unless it's just that these terms are
more self-consciously politically correct.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology

Sandy, great thought processes and questions (above)!  I won't pretend to
have the answer, will just try and help us edge toward possible
explanations.

> Aha! This explains an email that had me wondering lately,
> where the sender used the phrase "many Sheffgoth" (ie,
> Sheffield goths). But in another email she used the phrase
> "several Sheffgoths"

Perhaps a sign of transition from neologism to full lexicalization within
the same speaker?

> I wonder if the -ese morpheme is a separate phenomenon?
> "The Japanese", yes, but never "*several Japaneses".

It could well be.  For one thing, the denominal adjectival morpheme _-ese_
is of Romance origin (< Old French _-eis_ < Latin _-ensis_).  It is
non-native and has remained so.  In other words, it is restricted as a
derivative morpheme (no free derivation) and is treated grammatically
different in that it is is not seen as a part of a stem; i.e., in cases of
nominalization it may not take on another suffix, such as plural _-(e)s_ or
even another Latinate derivative morpheme, such as _-esque_.
(*_japanesesque_ 'Japanese-like', however theoretically *_japanesesque_, but
probably more likely fully Latinate _japonesque_).

> Apart from that, is there an implication of subculture in
> this usage? Eg, "the Navaho" but not "the Native American"
> nor "the Indian".

Well, remember that in pre-PC times it was quite common to say "the Indian"
or "the German" with plural meaning, i.e., in stereotyping _par excellence_
(which tended to go hand-in-hand with the liberal use of the word "race,"
i.e., "the German race"); e.g., "The Indian is quite contented under His
Majesty's gracious rule."  But ... perhaps I'm complicating the issue at
hand?

Note also deadjectival nouns like "Dutch", "French" and -- _¡con permiso,
amigos!_ -- "Scotch".  They, although native, do not permit plural morphemes
(*"Dutches", *"Frenches", *"Scotches", but _Scot_ -> _Scots_), likewise
anything with _-(i)sh_ ("Spanish", "English", "Welsh"), unlike anything with
_-(i)an_ (e.g., "Germans", "Norwegians", "Italians", "Moroccans",
"theologians"), original names (e.g., "Danes", "Greeks", "Scots", "Celts"),
and even foreign-derived _-i_ (e.g., "Pakistanis", "Israelis", "Punjabis",
"Sephardis").

Cheers!
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================