* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 20.197

Wed Jan 21 2009

Qs: Enclitics vs Proclitics

Editor for this issue: Dan Parker <danlinguistlist.org>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
        1.    Fay Wouk, Enclitics vs Proclitics

Message 1: Enclitics vs Proclitics
Date: 19-Jan-2009
From: Fay Wouk <f.woukauckland.ac.nz>
Subject: Enclitics vs Proclitics
E-mail this message to a friend

How does one determine whether a form is cliticized to the preceding or the
following word? I am working with Sasak, an Austronesian language that
makes regular use of reduced forms of pronouns. They encliticize to verbs,
but can also precede the verb, in which they could be analyzed as
procliticized to the verb, or as encliticized to the preceding auxiliary,
negative particle, adverb or conjunction. In the dialect I am currently
working with, sometimes they are clearly procliticized to the verb, as
there is no preceding element. In other cases they are clearly encliticized
to the preceding element, as shown by the presence of a ligature (e.g. mele
(want) + ku (1sg) becomes melengku). In other cases, where there is a
preceding element but no ligature, on what basis can one decide? Is it
better to look for phonological evidence, and if so, of what type, or is
there some other type of evidence that would be useful?

Please reply directly to me (f.woukauckland.ac.nz) and I will post a
summary to the list.


Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.