Print

Print


R A Brown, On 25/03/2013 08:42:
> On 25/03/2013 00:06, And Rosta wrote:
>> Patrick Dunn, On 24/03/2013 16:20:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> What the hell is a morphoneme?
>>
>> A morphophoneme, understood as a group of variant
>> phonological forms (phonemes, phoneme sequences) that
>> might be (i) phonologically conditioned, like /s, z,
>> @z~iz/ for English Z-suffix, (ii) morphologically
>> conditioned, like the C in -ic/-icity or the I in
>> divine/divinity, (iii) syntactically conditioned. (ii)
>> is the core class; I'm dubious about (i), and (iii) is
>> not a standard view.
>>
>> Morphonemes that consist of a single variant are
>> equivalent to phonemes. So //s . IAU . n . g // means "a
>> sequence of /s/ + /i/ or /a/ or /3/ + /n/ + /g/". It
>> wasn't the point of my post to discuss /N/, but I am of
>> the school of thought that holds that English has no /N/
>> phoneme, only /n g/ (Sapir, Edward (1925) Sound patterns
>> in language. Language 1, 3751).
>
> OK - to avoid turning a thread about morph(on)emes into 'yet
> another English phonology thread', let's take instead: swim
> ~ swam ~ swum. Then we have //s.w.IAU.m//.
>
> That makes sense for English 'strong verbs'. But how does
> the morphonemic approach deal with the equivalent forms of
> 'weak' and 'mixed' verbs, e.g.
> love ~ loved ~ loved
> buy ~ bought ~ bought

It hadn't occurred to me to try to handle all variation among inflectional forms as morphonemic alternation. So for {LOVE} you just add /d/ (or maybe //D// = /d, id/) to the stem in syntactically preterite contexts to yield the wordshape. For -ought verbs, you replace the final rime by -ought in preterite contexts. No morphonemes involved here. Nor any morphemes, since no rule of grammar attributes meaning or function directly to the 'morphs' -ed or -ought.

--And.