LINGUIST List 4.885

Wed 27 Oct 1993

Disc: Infixes

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. , Re: 4.851 Qs: Causatives, Infixes, Spanish Aspect
2. Geoffrey Russom, Re: 4.873 Sum: That Will Teach You, Addendum to Infixation Summary
3. Marnie Jo Petray, Infixes
4. , Re: addendum to infixation

Message 1: Re: 4.851 Qs: Causatives, Infixes, Spanish Aspect

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> LINGUIST List: Vol-4-851. Mon 18 Oct 1993. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 119

> 2)
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 11:05:28 EDT
> From: Alexis_Manaster_RamerMTS.cc.Wayne.edu
> Subject: Infixes
>
> I have been thinking about where infixes come from and believe
> that there are really two possible sources: phonological metathesis
> which leads to a suffix or prefix becoming an infix and morphological
> reanalysis as in Spanish where in a form like Pablito we once had
> a suffix -it- followed by a suffix -o, but now -it- has been
> reanalyzed as an infix, as evidenced by such forms as Osqu-it-ar
> from Oscar. (By the way, does anybody know if the infix analysis
> of the Spanish forms has been proposed before and if so by whom
> and where?)
>
Wouldn't an affix automatically become an 'infix' once it found
itself between the stem and a new affix?
Of course, the reanalysis evident in the case of Oscar (presumably an
indivisible stem) is interesting. Australian English (very colloquial
variety) has an interesting version of this: Kanga-bloody-roo. There
appear to be certain metrical constraints on the words which can be
used that. Note that the 'infix' is almost murmured; the whole
expression has to have a certain rythm to be felt to be acceptable,
e.g. XxXxX.

pp
=================================================================
(Dr) Peter PAUL Phone: +61-3-565.2295 (direct)
Linguistics, MONASH UNIVERSITY +61-3-565.5050 (Secr.)
CLAYTON, VIC 3168 FAX: +61-3-565.2294 (Dept.l)
Australia Email: [see below]
<ppaularts.cc.monash.edu.au> or <ppaulMONU1.cc.monash.edu.au>

Message 2: Re: 4.873 Sum: That Will Teach You, Addendum to Infixation Summary

On Mon, 25 Oct 1993 06:18:35 -0500 Alexis said:
>
>David Stampe >(and Peter Salus) point out that the fan-bloody-tastic
>pattern (where different dialects use different items for bloody)
>is an example of infixation arising by some route other than
>those suggested in my summary (metathesis or reanalysis of
>parts of a suffix or prefix chain).
>Does anybody know of any other such examples?

My daughter has used a secret language that infixes "ibble" between syllables
rather than suffixing the added item as in Pig Latin. Perhaps others have
observed similar processes.

-- Rick Russom

In reference to Alex Manaster Ramer's infixation summary addendum,
there are a couple of other infixes like "bloody" as in
"fan-bloody-tastic." "Fucking" as an infix is seen commonly in
examples like "in-fucking-credible," "un-fucking-believable," and
"bi-fucking-sexual." (no pun intended!) I suspect that the use is
more common with "in-" and "un-" words, but as the last example shows,
it can be found elsewhere. Also commonly used in the South (and maybe
other places) is "whole" used as an infix in "a-whole-nother," as in
"That's a-whole-nother issue." I thought it might have been
particular to Arkansas where I was raised, but I've seen a TV
commercial advertising Texas as "like a-whole-nother country." I do
believe this is the only context in which "whole" serves as an infix,
at least to my knowlege. Anyone else?

Marnie Jo Petray
petraymace.cc.purdue.edu

examples such as fan-bloody-tastic seem at least in part to depend on the
position of lexical stress(es) in the root word, rather than any sort of
reanalysis, etc.
witness extracu-bleeding-ricular, para-flaming-sitic (both attested),
but not *extra-bleeding-curricular.
 alex.