Discussion Details
| Title: | Fundamentality of Word Classes? |
| Submitter: | Jess Tauber |
| Description: | 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? Jess Tauber phonosemantics@earthlink.net |
| Date Posted: | 17-Jul-2007 |
| Linguistic Field(s): |
General Linguistics
Historical Linguistics Linguistic Theories Morphology Typology Lexicography |
| LL Issue: | 18.2168 |
| Posted: | 17-Jul-2007 |
