shimobaatar wrote: ↑
23 Jul 2018 13:02
eldin raigmore wrote: ↑
23 Jul 2018 06:11
felipesnark wrote: ↑
23 Jul 2018 02:24
eldin raigmore wrote: ↑
22 Jul 2018 16:46
Mine tends to go with suppletion or double-suppletion rather than leaving the paradigm defective.
"Double suppletion"? Like a paradigm being completed with three unrelated roots/stems?
Yes. Like Latin for “carry, bring, take, bear”. Fero, ferre, tuli, latum.
We get transfer, translate, prefer, prelate, tolerate, thole, refer, relate, etc.
According to Wiktionary
, this word's inflectional paradigm actually employs just two roots. "tulī" and "lātum" are apparently etymologically related. I'd assume that "ferō" and "ferre" are as well. Although, perhaps you'd still consider them separate roots?
I had read that it was doubly-suppletive and just trusted that source.
English verbs have three “principal parts”; Greek verbs have six; Latin verbs have four.
That verb’s principal parts are those four, “fero, ferre, tuli, latum”.
Fero and ferre are clearly phonologically similar, from which I inferred they came from the same root.
Tuli and latum don’t look nor sound that similar; I never bothered to look up their more ancient etymology.
So this brings up a question; what is the “root” in a paradigm?
And, for verbs’ conjugations, is there a cross-linguistic theory-neutral way to define “principal parts”?
And how does one decide whether two of some verb’s “principal parts” are from the same root or are different enough to count as suppletive?
And BTW, do nouns’ declensions have “principal parts” too?
But I think it still illustrates the idea of “doubly suppletive” —— doesn’t it?
If it doesn’t, English’s copula verb “is, was, been” is at least
doubly-suppletive, maybe triply-suppletive.
Some 3Cons have some “hollow roots”.
For a paradigm with a “hollow root” to be non-defective, it must be irregular somehow.
Sometimes that means suppletion.
Some 3Cons have some “doubly hollow” roots.
I don’t know that it for sure happens in a natlang, but I’d expect that a paradigm with a doubly-hollow root could escape being defective, by being doubly-suppletive; (perhaps among other means).
AFMCL some roots might be “triply hollow”. Some of them might be doubly-suppletive and yet still defective. Don’t know if that ever happens in a natlang.
BTW @Salmoneus (and responders to his post and to those responses and so on): Good points!
I’m pretty sure the notion of “derived from a common root” that is being used when discussing suppletion, is the synchronic one.
At any rate, now that you’ve made me think about it, I’m sure it’s the one I
After all, diachronically speaking, there’s no way to prove
that every surviving word in every surviving language aren’t all descended from a single word in Pre-Proto-World!
(Although it is highly doubtful!)
Edit: before English’s “go, went, gone” stole “went” from “wend”, it was already suppletive;
its principal parts apparently were “go, eode, gone”, or something similar.