LINGUIST List 18.2168|
Tue Jul 17 2007
Disc: New: Fundamentality of Word Classes?
Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
Fundamentality of Word Classes?
Message 1: Fundamentality of Word Classes?
From: Jess Tauber <phonosemanticsearthlink.net>
Subject: Fundamentality of Word Classes?
E-mail this message to a friend
Are word class distinctions fundamental in the lexicon, or the result of
historical processes? Must roots belong to one class or another, or can
underspecification be the norm when new roots are created, as for instance
by lexicalization of ideophones.
Morphosyntax seems to be the commonest means to disambiguate class - by
affixation, compounding, or position. Yet today's 'roots' may be the result
of fusion with old morphology. As such, are old derived distinctions
percolating into the lexicon, only to be lost later as the echoes of the
processes which created them are forgotten?
If this is the case, might morphosyntactic typology be able to tell us more
about it? Do 'nouny' or 'verby' have ambiguity in different places in the
lexicon, or those rich in ideophones or grams?
Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.