Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <dizdar
tam2000.tamu.edu>
Greetings, A few days ago I posted a question regarding Circumfixes. I wanted to find out if there were any general studies done on them, or more specific references, etc. However, my presumption that everyone knows what a circumfix is has porven to be unfounded. On the prompting of one respondent, I have posted this short description of the phenomenon so that I might get a broader range of replies. On the surface, a circumfix is a combination of a prefix and a suffix. However, the appearence of the prefixal material and the suffixal material is mutually obligatory. In other words, the prefixal part cannot occur without the suffixal part, and vice-versa. Alone, neither part bears meaning. Or, if it does, the compositional meaning of the two parts is not equal to the sum of its parts. As an example: Tagalog 'ka...an' = 'the class or group of X': bukid 'field' > bukiran 'fields'. The above definition is an 'absolutist' type. There seem to be 'gradations' of types (for want of a better term). Thus, German 'ge..t' omits the 'ge' with certain verbs. At this point, I am looking for anything that could _possibly_ be a circumfix, even if it's phonological parts are not always co-present. People's lack of acquaintance with the term 'circumfix' is probably because it has been largely ignored in morphological theory. See Rochelle Lieber's 'Deconstructing Morphology' (1992:155-7) and Laurie Bauer's 'A descriptive gap in morphology.' in the Yearbook of Morphology 1988 (pp.17-27). Regards, Paul de Lacy. University of Auckland. - ---------====================================----------- Phone: [New Zealand] 64-9-6271101 E-mail: University: <pvlMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueantnov1.auckland.ac.nz> NB MY HOME ADDRESS IS UNRELIABLE. TO MAKE SURE YOUR MESSAGE GETS THRU, SEND IT TO THE UNI ADDRESS!!!!!OR BOTH! Home: <delacy
voyager.co.nz> ===========------------------------------------===========