Aha, thanks so much. My students will be less confused now.
Prudence
From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John
Dews-Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: another question
Great question!
I've always thought of "have" and "have" as two words (or
two homographic morphemes). One "have" is a free morpheme lexical
verb related to possession; it's free and carries meaning alone. The other
"have" is a bound morpheme that only makes sense when it is attached
to "to," and this version functions as a modal verb similar to
"must."
While these two "words" look alike, they are pronounced differently
always. The free morpheme contains the "v" sound while the bound
morpheme contains the "f" sound.
Now, that's just how I've always thought about it; I make NO claim to being
correct!
It's interesting to note that "have to," meaning "must," is
a very commonly used example of grammaticalization in progress, leading to the
emergent "new" single-morpheme form (just a reanalysis):
"hafta."
Also interesting is that the pronunciation difference is very minute. The
"f" sound and the "v" sound are really the same sound, just
with a voicing/vibration of the vocal cords difference (or, as Herb's convinced
me, a matter of lenition/fortition).
I'm interested in how others view these divergent uses of "have."
John Alexander
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Ingerman, Prudence
(INGERMAN) <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Oh I am so enjoying this.
Here is another which has kept my awake at night.
How many children do you
have? I have two. ( now to be referred to as A)
Why do you
work? I have to. ( B)
In A, the
stress is clearly on the word two. In B, the stress is on the
auxiliary verb.
My question is this, why
is the V in “have two” pronounced fully when it is not in the stressed word,
and why is the V in the verb “have to” pronounced as an F when it is clearly
stressed. I realize this is a pronunciation problem but I am sure it is
linked to grammar. I think somehow the omission or understood
verb ( work) is related to the reduced pronunciation but I am not sure how.
Thanks for thinking,
Prudence
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a grammar question
These are tricky.
If we treat “mother-in-law” as a phrasal compound, then the –s plural would go
on the head noun as a suffix. If we say “mother-in-laws” as a plural then
either we’re attaching plural –s to a phrase, making it a clitic, or we’re
treating the compound as a noun stem, in which case –s is a suffix. I
lean towards the latter since these phrasal compounds tend to become stems over
time. The genitive plural “mothers-in-law’s” of recent polygamous fame,
bears out the former analysis, with the plural suffix on “mother” and the
genitive clitic –s on the phrasal compound. Other examples of phrasal
compounds becoming stems would be “nice” < Latin nescius “foolish, ignorant”
and “atonement” < at+ (one + ment). “onement” goes back to the 14th
c., “atonement” to the early 16th, and the backformation “atone” to
the mid 16th.
Complicating the question of
what the –s is is the fact that we generally can’t pluralize nouns within a
compound noun, just the whole compound, so we can’t say “bookskeeper” but
rather “bookkeepers.” That’s what led me, in a paper that’s taking its
time getting published, to argue that the –s in sportsman, helmsman,
gameskeeper, etc. is a derivational affix, not an inflectional affix.
Derivational affixes can occur within compounds. Inflectional affixes
cannot.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: 2009-05-12 14:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a grammar question
Herb, I know you've studied clitics
extensively; is there any evidence of the English plural marker (-s) moving
away from affix status and toward clitic status?
I ask this because in actual usage, I hear "mother-in-laws" much more
often than I hear "mothers-in-law" for the plural.
As a teacher I offer the wisdom of bowing to style guides, but as a linguist I
get to have more fun and find out what actually happens in language. In
this case, the linguist in me is more intrigued than the teacher.
John Alexander
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Works only if both husbands have remarried. Otherwise aren't both
mothers-in-law your mother. Could her taste in clothes really be that
bad? And so soon after Mother's Day.
Welcome to the list!
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/