Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
An additional source for evidence of morphological relatedness is errors in morphology homework problems. I say this because I just graded an elementary exercise in derivational morphology from _Language Files_. At least one student, a native speaker, did not recognize the following morphological relatednesses: explosion (didn't think of it as made up of 'explode+ion') active (didn't see 'act' in it) responsibility (didn't see 'responsible') One of the problems with clever underlying forms based on relatedness between words is that there is great individual variation among native speakers as to whether there IS a common form-meaning pairing. In Mohanan's old book on lexical phonology, for example, he uses the pair 'native': 'nation' as evidence for a level one rule of palatalization. But how many would argue for a synchronic semantic connection between those two? Etymological, sure, and obviously, orthographic. But the core meanings of 'native' (something like 'aboriginal') and 'nation' (political entity) are sufficiently distant to argue against a common lexical entry, which is what 'underlying form' is all about. Geoff Geoffrey S. Nathan Department of Linguistics Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Carbondale, IL, 62901-4517 Phone: (618) 453-3421 (Office) / FAX (618) 453-6527 (618) 549-0106 (Home) geoffnMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuesiu.edu