“Winningest” presents an
interesting problem in language change, as Bruce suggests. The pattern in
English of /Ng/ vs. /N/ alternation, where /N/ represents the velar nasal sound
in “sing,” lays out roughly as below:
Morpheme-internally English has /Ng/, as
in “finger,” “dangle,” or “
Before a vowel-initial inflectional
suffix, English has /Ng/, as in “longer,” “strongest.”
Before a vowel-initial derivational
suffix, English has /N/, as in “singer,” “hanger.”
Word-finally English as /N/, as in “sing,”
“long,” etc.
It could be argued that /Ng/ vs. /N/
represents a productive morphophonemic alternation. “Winningest”
would support this claim, since –ing is a derivational suffix and so does
not have a /g/ before an inflectional suffix. “Winninger,”
whether it occurs or not, would behave the same way for the same reason.
In Old English there was only /Ng/ and
/Nk/, no bare /N/, since /N/ was what /n/ became by assimilation to a following
velar (/g,k/). In Middle and Modern English the final /g/ was lost in the
contexts given above where /N/ now occurs by itself.
It can thus be argued that /g/-deletion is
a regular morphophonemic rule in Modern English.
As a side note, this /g/-deletion is
distinct from what is popularly referred to as “dropping “g,”
the free variation between “walking” and “walkin’.”
This variation, which actually has nothing to do with /g/-deletion and refers instead
to an orthographic practice, probably arises from the merger in Middle English
of Old English present participles in –end- and gerunds in –ing.
The final /g/ of /-INg/ was lost as illustrated above, since it was word final,
giving the form /-IN/, as in “walking.” The loss of the final
/d/ of the –end suffix produced the form /-In/, as in “walkin’.”
The –ing/-in’ variation reflects the distinct sources of the Modern
English present participle, and although our spelling makes it look like
dropping of /g/, phonologically there is no /g/ to drop. The –in’
form simply has a different historical source.
Herb
From:
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010
9:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Double suffixes
Another observation:
participles loving, winning, and losing have superlatives but not comparatives: The Canandian
women's ice hockey team was the winningest in the Olympics, even winninger than
the Americans.
Dick
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Webmail bdespain <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Just some more observations.
There is a certain phonetic similarity about the two-syllable
words that attract the -est suffix: they seem to end in an unstressed
vowel or sonnant, e.g., able, clever, common, feeble, gentle, narrow,
shallow, simple. Some single-syllables that end in -ng make the g hard, e.g., long
(longest), strong (strongest). The fact that the adjective
forming -ing does not seem to do
this suggests a separate allophone or morphophonemic rule. Also the -y adjectives that attract -est can often have another syllable added
to the front, as, unhappiest, untidiest.
This does not seem to be the same for loving
or winning: *"the
unlovingest disciple", ?"the unwinningest team this
season."
Bruce
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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/