Re: [tied] Composition/thematic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-01-20 17:30, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > And there I might pull Kuhn's argument out of the hat and claim

that

> > those forms were 'mots populaires' which appear late in written
> > sources. Are there other reasons for that obviousiality?
>
> Yes. Forms which may easily have arisen at any time thanks to a
> productive analogical rule are more likely to be secondary than

those

> that show various irregularities and bear the fingerprints of old,
> non-productive processes. For example, the regular past tense in

English

> is evidently less archaic than the marginally surviving

("irregular")

> strong preterites.


>Also, why _should_ thematic nouns and adjectives be
> de-compositional anyway?
>

Occam, so no _should_. Two phenonema derived from one (rather one
derived from the other). But that makes Glen's (Sturtevant's?) idea
the winner, that thematics are from athematic genitives turned into
adjectives by applying congruence rules.


Torsten