Editor for this issue: <>
In Israeli Hebrew, the potential tense verb affixes are Sg. Pl. m. both f. 1 'a- ne- 2 te- te--i te--u 3 ye- te- ye--u Were it not for one anomaly, it would be easy to assign glosses to the prefixes and suffixes individually as: 'a- 1sg. ne- 1pl. te- 2 ye- 3 -i f. -u pl. But this scheme would predict *ye--i "3fsg." where we in fact see te-. In a very conservative account, the anomaly would forbid us from "factoring" the affix te--i, forcing us to treat it as a circumfix. Most would prefer to regard the affix as a prefix and a suffix acting together. This example from a "gray area" prompts me to ask Dr. Fromkin for a careful definition of a circumfix. How can you distinguish a circumfix from a prefix/suffix pair? Arabists may disconfirm me, but I believe there are less gray examples in Classical Arabic.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
RE A. Manaster Ramer's question about references for IO clitics in Romance, the classical GB literature has several important dissertations that deal with this subject. They include Osvaldo Jaeggli's MIT disserta- tion (1980) later publixhed by Foris, Hagit Borer's MIT diss. (also by Foris), and (a pre-GB source) Judith Strozer's UCLA dissertation from 1977. A large number of papers and dissertations by a variety of other authors in the early 1980's addressed theoretical questions involving these clitics, many of them concerned with R. Kayne's generalization that clitic doubling is possible only with an NP argument that is governed by a preposition (given a Case-theoretic treatment by Jaeggli). One of the main dialects of interest was that of River Plate Spanish, which also allows clitic doubling of a human direct object (also preceded by "a" in Spanish). --Tim StowellMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue