ni pfo-yi ‘your [sg.] father-acc’ the moveable
linguistic chunk which exchanges its position with ai ‘I’
is not a word but a phrase on other, more dominant criteria.
Sentence pairs 24-24a through 26-26a are further examples
of linguistic material higher than the word scrambling across,
the last pair illustrating the mobility of a sentence within
a sentence :
|
|
24. |
ai-no1 |
asi2 |
kosü-ta-yi3
|
da-o ie4
|
|
|
‘It was |
I1
|
whowalloped4 |
the three3 |
dogs2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24a. |
osi2 |
kosü3-ta-yi2 |
ai-no1
|
da-oie4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25. |
ni1
|
pfü2
|
ayi3 |
sü-ama4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25a. |
ayi3 |
ni1
|
pfu3 |
sü4-ama5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
pfo-hi1 |
[a]hie-ko-o |
oja-no3
|
ano-o
|
bu-e4 |
|
‘the teacher3
|
is asking4 |
who2 |
he1 |
[is]’ |
|
|
|
26a. |
oja |
no |
ano-o |
bu-e |
pfo-hi |
[a]hie-ko-o |
|
Further, Mobility conflicts with both potential pause [e.g.
postpositions] and Isolability [from immediate linguistic
context] [e.g. le, the future tense auxiliary]. One could
pause between ayi ‘me’ and akuo ‘with’
in
|
|
27. |
ayi1 |
akuo2
|
avu-lo3 |
‘eat1
|
your meal3 |
with2 |
me1 |
|
but akuo is not mobile :
|
| 27a. |
* akuo |
ayi |
avu-lo |
| 27b. |
* ayi |
avu-lo |
akuo |
|
In the disjunct approach to wordhood, Mobility
means combinatorial freedom ; that is, a linguistic chunk could be
phonologically a part of more than one external distribution class. |
3.0.2.4.
|
Elliptibility |
Phonic material which is elliptible or deletable
under identity with a trigger either in a linguistic or pragmatic context is
a word. In the following interaction, the ellipted material, symbolized by
O, is presumably a word :
|
| A : |
ahie-no1 |
kra-we2
|
‘who is 1 |
crying2
?’ |
|
| B : |
ni1 |
na-no2
|
O[=kra-we]3 |
‘your1
child2 |
O[=is
crying]3 ‘ |
|
Subwords or bound morphemes are not elliptible :
|
| A : |
ahie-no |
kra-we |
|
| B :
|
a. ni na-no |
O[=kra-we] |
|
| |
*b. ni |
na-no |
kra-O[=we] |
| |
*c.ni |
na - O |
[=no] |
|
A fourth reaction by B viz.
|
| *d. |
ni |
na-no |
O
[=kra] -we |
|
is not possible either, leading one to the conclusion that
kra‘to cry’ is not elliptible and hence is a sub
construction rather than a construction. A formidable counter
to this seemingly sound argument is that kra in the sentence
under consideration is not deletable not because kra
is not subject to ellipsis, but because it is part
of a word. Supporting evidence comes from constructions
where the linguistic context of kra ‘to cry’ is
not phonologically bound but is free, ‘isolable’ where kra
is a word, not part of a word.
|
| 28. |
ni1 |
na-no2
|
kra3
le4 |
‘your1
|
child2 |
will4 |
cry3
|
| 28a. |
ni1
|
na-no2 |
O[=kra]
3 |
le4
|
|
|
|
|
Elliptibility is not necessary as it is often sensitive to
the synactic-semantic nature of the linguistic material under question, not
just to its status as to [phonological] wordhood. Phonologically
independent, integral but linguistic-structurally and notionally dependent
linguistic material can not be ellipted. Thus, individual constituents of
[modifier] modified - modifier constructions are not subject to ellipsis :
|
| A : |
ata1 |
cü2 |
kochu3 |
adicü4 |
bue5
|
| |
‘where4 |
is5 |
our1
|
new3 |
house2
?’ |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| B :
|
a. O[=ata
cü kochu]1 |
lohe-no2 |
bue3
|
|
|
| |
‘O[=our
new house |
is3
|
there2
|
|
|
|
