Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
Dear All, I appreciate it if any one can shed some light on the origin(s) of the word 'Chechnia / Chechen'. It seem to be foreign to all Chechens as they call themselves 'Nohchi'. You may respond directly to me. Maher BahloulMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Query: Re. the distribution of -heit/keit in German, or criteria of assessing morphological complexity Some years ago, someone told me that the distribution of the abstract-noun forming suffix <-heit/keit> (similar to English <-ness>) in German was determined by whether the stem is morphologically simplex or complex: if it is simplex, attach <-heit>; otherwise, i.e., if it is complex, attach <-keit>. Two examples where this works would be: <Dummheit> 'stupidity' (viz. <dumm> 'stupid') versus <Schweigsamkeit> 'taciturnity' (viz. <schweig-en> 'to be silent', <schweig-sam> 'taciturn'): <dumm> <Dummheit> (<-heit> attached to a morphologically simplex stem) <schweig-sam> <Schweig-sam-keit> (<-keit> attached to a morphologically complex stem) Unfortunately, there many cases where this does not work, e.g. <verlogen> 'mendacious', <Verlogenheit> (viz. ver-log-en; <lueg-en> 'to lie (tell untruth)', <ver-> 'COMMON PREFIX MEANING GOD KNOWS WHAT', <-en> '(IRREGULAR) PAST PARTICIPLE'; -> <ver-log-en>; we expect -keit according to the complexity rule above!) Note: (1) unstressed preverbs never 'count' as complexity-adding (if we want to push the morphological-complexity rule). (2) Inflectional (bound) morphemes, e.g., <-en> in <verlogen>, do not 'count' either. Let me also point out that I am not saying here that it actually is morphological complexity which determines the distribution of -heit/keit nor do I support the usage of ad-hoc hypotheses (like the ones in (1) and (2)) in order to immunise other hypotheses, e.g., the the-distribution-of-heit/keit-is-determined-by-the-morphological-complex ity-of-the-stem hypothesis, against refutation. I merely wanted to illustrate where a rule I was told about once works and where it does not. So here are my questions 1. I know that there is something about the distribution of <-heit/keit> in R. Wiese's *The Phonology of German*. Is there any other literature on this (which may or may not agree with Wiese or the complexity rule above)? 2. Does anyone have another opinion as to what is going on (and possibly a reference to a written-up version thereof)? 3. Are there any other non-semantic criteria on the basis of which one could investigate the distribution of -heit/keit? 4. Are there any semantic ones? (I cannot think of one, but who knows...) 5. Are there any other affixes or even free morphemes (in German or any language) which exibit allomorphy whose distribution looks as if it was determined by morphological complexity, or about which it has been claimed that it is determined by morphological complexity but where you disagree? 6. Do you know about any nice electronic German dictionary? (By 'nice' I mean that the more convenient electronic searches are and the cheaper it is the nicer it is. A free electronic dictionary with a user-friendly search-interface which can list lists in ascending and descending order would be very 'nice'.) Of course, I will post a summary. Regards, Stefan Ploch. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr Stefan Ploch Senior Lecturer Linguistics (SLLS) University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Private Bag 3 WITS 2050 South Africa stefanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuelinguistics.wits.ac.za (default/Normalfall), or/oder stefan_ploch
hotmail.com (checked irregularly/wird unregelm=E4=DFig durchgesehen) http://languages.wits.ac.za/~stefan