| *b. |
O[=ata]1 |
[o]cü2 |
kochu3 |
lohe-no4 |
bue5
|
| |
‘O[=our]1 |
new3 |
house |
is5 |
there4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| *c. |
ata1 |
O[=[o]cü]2 |
kochu3 |
lohe-no4 |
bue5
|
| |
‘our1
|
new3 |
O[=house]2 |
is5 |
there4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| *d. |
O[=ata cü]1 |
kochu2 |
lohe-no3 |
bu-e4
|
|
| |
‘O[our house]1 |
new2 |
is4 |
there3
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| *e. |
ata1 |
cü2 |
O[=kochu]3 |
lohe-no4 |
bu-e5
|
| |
‘our1
|
O[=new]3 |
house2 |
is5 |
there4
|
|
In the above dialogue, ata ‘our’, cü ‘house’ and
kochu ‘new’ are constituents of a modifier-modified construction. None of
them can be deleted to the exclusion of the others. In the dialogue that
follows, the modified constituent is a verb and the modifiers are an adverb
and an intensifier :
|
| A : |
pfo1 |
inglish2 |
rü3
|
mazhü4 |
shu-5 |
o6 -o7
|
| |
‘does6
|
he1
|
write3
|
English2
|
very5
|
well ?7
|
|
| A : |
pfo1 |
inglish2 |
rü3 |
mazhü4 |
shu-5 |
o6 -o7
|
|
|
| |
‘does6 |
he1 |
write3 |
English2 |
very5 |
well ?7 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B : |
a. |
ove1 |
O[=pfo]2 |
inglish3 |
rü4 |
mazhu5 |
-shu6 |
-we7 |
| |
‘Yes,1 |
O[=he]2 |
writes,4 |
O[=English]3 |
very6 |
well5 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
*b. |
ove1 |
O[=pfo]2 |
O[=inglish]3 |
rü4 |
O[=mazh*]5 |
O[=shu]6 |
-we7 |
| |
‘yes,1 |
O[=he]2 |
Owrites4 |
O[=English]3 |
O[=very well]5
6 |
-hab7 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
*c. |
ove1 |
O[=pfo]2 |
O[=inglish]3 |
rü4 |
O[mazhü]5 |
shu6we7
|
|
| |
‘yes,1 |
O[=he]2 |
writes4 |
O[=English]3 |
very6 |
O[=well]5
|
-hab7 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
*d. |
ove1 |
O[=pfo]2 |
O[=inglish]3 |
rü4 |
mazhü5 |
O[=shu]6 |
-we7 |
| |
‘yes,1 |
O[=he]2 |
writes4 |
O[=English]3 |
O[=very]6 |
well5 |
-hab7 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
*e. |
ove1 |
O[=pfo]2 |
O[=inglish]3 |
O[=rü]4 |
mazhü4 |
shu6 |
-we7 |
| |
‘yes,1 |
O[=he]2 |
O[=writes]4 |
O[=English]3 |
very6 |
well5 |
-hab7 |
|
|
| |
| Elliptibility is not sufficient because it is
diagnostic of wordhood vis-a-vis affixhood and not of wordhood vis-a-vis
phrasehood. Phrases, and indeed sentences within sentences [the last example
below], not just words, could be ellipted: |
| A: |
osi1 |
pongo2
- i3 |
adicü4 |
bue5
|
|
|
where4 |
are5 |
the3 |
five2 |
dogs1
? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B: |
O[=osi
pongoüi]1 |
he2 |
bue3
|
|
|
|
O[=the
five dogs]1 |
are3 |
here2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A: |
nieo1 |
manüi2 |
kazhü-püi2-hi3
|
[a]hie4
-ko-e |
|
|
who1 |
[is]
the 3 |
beautiful
2 |
female1
? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B: |
O[=nieo
mamüi kazhü-püi-hi]1 |
a2
|
cümüi3
-ko-e |
|
|
| |
O[=the
beautiful female]1 |
[is]
my 2 |
wife3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A: |
mangili
mikrü-li 2 |
lo3 |
le4 |
o5 |
ahieno6pe7 |
|
who6
said 7that5 |
Mangili
1 |
will4
go |
down3
to |
Imphal
2? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B: |
O[=mangili
mikrü-li lo le
o]1
|
ni2 |
na-no3 |
pe4
|
|
| |
O[=that
Mangili will go down to Imphal]1 |
[itwas] |
|
|
|
| |
your2 |
child[who]3 |
said4
|
|
|
|
Elliptibility conflicts with the criterion of
Potential Pause. Postpositions, for instance, are not elliptible
|
| A : |
ahikho-yi1 |
akuo2 |
ahie-no3 |
ta4 |
le5
|
| |
who3 |
will5 |
go4 |
with2 |
Athikho1
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| B : a. |
ahikho-yi |
akuo |
ahia-no |
ta |
le |
| |
‘Athia |
will |
go |
along with |
Athikho |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
*b. ahikho-[yi]1 |
O[=akuo]2 |
ahia-no3 |
ta
4 |
le5
|
| |
Athia3 |
will5 |
go4 |
O[=with]2 |
Athikho1
|
|
But akuo ‘with ; together with’, the
postposition in the above sentences has potential
pause marking its boundary with its preceding
and following linguistic material. Note further
that akuo the postposition is ultimately
ruled a word because Potential Pause overrides
Elliptibility whenever the two criteria are in
conflict.
|
| 3.0.2.5. |
Substitutability |
If b can substitute for a, and
if a has already been ruled a word on other criteria,
b is a word too. Thus,
|
