Word-Formation. Volume 4 Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe 9783110378979, 9783110379082, 9783110393545

Citation preview

Word-Formation HSK 40.4

Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer Mitherausgegeben (1985–2001) von Hugo Steger

Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par Herbert Ernst Wiegand

Band 40.4

De Gruyter Mouton

Word-Formation An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe Volume 4 Edited by Peter O. Müller Ingeborg Ohnheiser Susan Olsen Franz Rainer

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-037897-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-037908-2 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039354-5 ISSN 1861-5090 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen 앝 Printed on acid-free paper 앪 Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents

Volume 4 XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages Indo-European Germanic 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143.

German · Irmhild Barz . . . . . . . English · Ingo Plag . . . . . . . . . Dutch · Geert Booij . . . . . . . . . Frisian · Jarich F. Hoekstra . . . . . Yiddish · Simon Neuberg . . . . . . Faroese · Hjalmar P. Petersen . . . Danish · Hans Götzsche . . . . . . . Norwegian · John Ole Askedal . . . Swedish · Kristina Kotcheva . . . . Icelandic · Þorsteinn G. Indriðason

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

2387 2411 2427 2451 2465 2487 2505 2525 2554 2578

Portuguese · Bernhard Pöll . . . . . . . Spanish · Franz Rainer . . . . . . . . . Catalan · Maria Teresa Cabré Castellví French · Franck Floricic . . . . . . . . Ladin · Heidi Siller-Runggaldier . . . . Sardinian · Immacolata Pinto . . . . . . Italian · Franz Rainer . . . . . . . . . . Romanian · Maria Grossmann . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

2600 2620 2641 2661 2682 2693 2712 2731

152. Breton · Elmar Ternes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153. Welsh · Paul Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154. Irish · Brian Ó Curnáin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2752 2769 2782

Romance 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151.

Celtic

Slavic 155. Upper Sorbian · Anja Pohontsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156. Polish · Alicja Nagórko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2811 2831

vi

Contents 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168.

Kashubian · Edward Breza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Czech · Ivana Bozděchová . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slovak · Martina Ivanová and Martin Ološtiak . . . Ukrainian · Ievgeniia Karpilovska . . . . . . . . . . Belarusian · Alâksandr Lukašanec . . . . . . . . . . Russian · Igor’ S. Uluhanov . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slovene · Irena Stramljič Breznik . . . . . . . . . . Croatian · Mario Grčević . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serbian · Božo Ćorić . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bosnian · Branko Tošović . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulgarian · Cvetanka Avramova and Julia Baltova Macedonian · Lidija Arizankovska . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

2852 2872 2892 2913 2932 2953 2979 2998 3017 3038 3049 3070

Map of languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3087

Volume 1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I.

v vii

Word-formation as a linguistic discipline

1. The scope of word-formation research · Hans-Jörg Schmid . . . . . . . . . 2. Word-formation research from its beginnings to the 19 th century · Barbara Kaltz and Odile Leclercq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Word-formation in historical-comparative grammar · Thomas Lindner . . . 4. Word-formation in structuralism · Wolfgang Motsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Word-formation in inhaltbezogene Grammatik · Johannes Erben . . . . . . 6. Word-formation in onomasiology · Joachim Grzega . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Word-formation in generative grammar · Rochelle Lieber . . . . . . . . . . 8. Word-formation in categorial grammar · Ulrich Wandruszka . . . . . . . . . 9. Word-formation in natural morphology · Hans Christian Luschützky . . . . 10. Word-formation in cognitive grammar · John R. Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Word-formation in optimality theory · Renate Raffelsiefen . . . . . . . . . . 12. Word-formation in construction grammar · Geert Booij . . . . . . . . . . . 13. Word-formation in psycholinguistics and neurocognitive research · Gary Libben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

1

. . . . . . . . . . .

22 38 52 66 79 94 112 123 145 158 188

.

203

14. The delimitation of derivation and inflection · Pavol Štekauer . . . . . . . . . 15. Units of word-formation · Joachim Mugdan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. Derivation · Andrew Spencer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

218 235 301

II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects

Contents 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Conversion · Salvador Valera . . . . . . . . . . Backformation · Pavol Štekauer . . . . . . . . Clipping · Anja Steinhauer . . . . . . . . . . . Composition · Susan Olsen . . . . . . . . . . . Blending · Bernhard Fradin . . . . . . . . . . . Incorporation · Jason D. Haugen . . . . . . . . Particle-verb formation · Andrew McIntyre . Multi-word expressions · Matthias Hüning and Reduplication · Thomas Schwaiger . . . . . . Word-creation · Elke Ronneberger-Sibold . . Allomorphy · Wolfgang U. Dressler . . . . . .

vii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barbara Schlücker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

322 340 352 364 386 413 434 450 467 485 500

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

517 524 537 551 568 582 594 611 627 660 673 688 707 727 742 757

.

780

. . . .

803 822 842 859

III. Units and processes in word-formation II: Special cases 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

Affective palatalization in Basque · José Ignacio Hualde . . . . . . . . . . . Parasynthesis in Romance · David Serrano-Dolader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affix pleonasm · Francesco Gardani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interfixes in Romance · Michel Roché . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linking elements in Germanic · Nanna Fuhrhop and Sebastian Kürschner Synthetic compounds in German · Martin Neef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Verbal pseudo-compounds in German · Christian Fortmann . . . . . . . . . Particle verbs in Germanic · Nicole Dehé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Particle verbs in Romance · Claudio Iacobini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Particle verbs in Hungarian · Mária Ladányi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noun-noun compounds in French · Pierre J. L. Arnaud . . . . . . . . . . . Verb-noun compounds in Romance · Davide Ricca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Co-compounds · Bernhard Wälchli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multi-word units in French · Salah Mejri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multi-word expressions and univerbation in Slavic · Olga Martincová . . . Compounds and multi-word expressions in Slavic · Ingeborg Ohnheiser . . Paradigmatically determined allomorphy: the “participial stem” from Latin to Italian · Anna M. Thornton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Volume 2 IV. Rules and restrictions in word-formation I: General aspects 45. 46. 47. 48.

Rules, patterns and schemata in word-formation · Heike Baeskow Word-formation and analogy · Sabine Arndt-Lappe . . . . . . . . . Productivity · Livio Gaeta and Davide Ricca . . . . . . . . . . . . Restrictions in word-formation · Livio Gaeta . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

viii

Contents

V. Rules and restrictions in word-formation II: Special cases 49. 50. 51. 52.

Argument-structural restrictions on word-formation patterns · Holden Härtl Phonological restrictions on English word-formation · Renate Raffelsiefen Morphological restrictions on English word-formation · Lothar Peter . . . Semantic restrictions on word-formation: the English suffix -ee · Heike Baeskow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53. Dissimilatory phenomena in French word-formation · Marc Plénat . . . . . 54. Closing suffixes · Stela Manova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55. Closing suffix patterns in Russian · Dmitri Sitchinava . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

876 894 918

. . . .

932 945 957 972

. . . . . . . . .

984 1002 1020

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1035 1056 1099 1128

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1143 1159 1171 1183 1195 1209 1230 1241 1253 1268 1285 1304 1316 1327 1339 1351 1360

. . .

1373

VI. Semantics and pragmatics in word-formation I: General aspects 56. 57. 58. 59.

Motivation, compositionality, idiomatization · Daniela Marzo . . . . . . Word-formation and folk etymology · Sascha Michel . . . . . . . . . . . Categories of word-formation · Volkmar Lehmann . . . . . . . . . . . . Schemata and semantic roles in word-formation · Hanspeter Ortner and Lorelies Ortner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60. Word-formation and argument structure · Manfred Bierwisch . . . . . . 61. Word-formation and metonymy · Manfred Bierwisch . . . . . . . . . . . 62. The pragmatics of word-formation · Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi . . . . .

VII. Semantics and pragmatics in word-formation II: Special cases 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

Noun-noun compounds · Christina L. Gagné and Thomas L. Spalding . Gender marking · Ursula Doleschal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singulatives · Paolo Acquaviva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collectives · Wiltrud Mihatsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Action nouns · Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Action nouns in Romance · Livio Gaeta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Verbal nouns in Celtic · Paul Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nominalization in Hungarian · Tibor Laczkó . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Result nouns · Chiara Melloni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality nouns · Franz Rainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status nouns · Hans Christian Luschützky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agent and instrument nouns · Franz Rainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patient nouns · Susanne Mühleisen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place nouns · Bogdan Szymanek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intensification · Franz Rainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Negation · Marisa Montero Curiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Negation in the Slavic and Germanic languages · Jozef Pavlovič . . . . Spatial and temporal relations in German word-formation · Ludwig M. Eichinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

Adverbial categories · Davide Ricca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denominal verbs · Andrew McIntyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valency-changing word-formation · Dieter Wunderlich . . . . . . . . . . Word-formation and lexical aspect: deverbal verbs in Italian · Nicola Grandi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Word-formation and aspect in Samoyedic · Beáta Wagner-Nagy . . . . Verbal prefixation in Slavic: a minimalist approach · Petr Biskup and Gerhild Zybatow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denumeral categories · Bernhard Fradin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The semantics and pragmatics of Romance evaluative suffixes · Martin Hummel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morphopragmatics in Slavic · Alicja Nagórko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix . . . . . . . . .

1390 1406 1424

. . . . . .

1467 1482

. . . . . .

1492 1515

. . . . . .

1528 1545

Volume 3 VIII. Foreign word-formation, language planning and purism I: General aspects 90. Types of foreign word-formation · Wieland Eins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. Word-formation in Neo-Latin · Thomas Lindner and Franz Rainer . . . . . . 92. Foreign word-formation, language planning and purism · Wolfgang Pöckl .

1561 1580 1598

IX. Foreign word-formation, language planning and purism II: Special cases 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101.

Foreign word-formation in German · Peter O. Müller . . . . . . . . . . . Foreign word-formation in English · Klaus Dietz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreign word-formation in Italian · Claudio Iacobini . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreign word-formation in Polish · Krystyna Waszakowa . . . . . . . . . Word-formation and purism in German · Mechthild Habermann . . . . . Word-formation and purism in French · Petra Braselmann . . . . . . . . . Word-formation and purism in Croatian · Branko Tošović . . . . . . . . . Word-formation and language planning in Estonian · Virve Raag . . . . . Individual initiatives and concepts for expanding the lexicon in Russian · Wolfgang Eismann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1615 1637 1660 1679 1696 1708 1720 1730

. .

1744

102. Mechanisms and motives of change in word-formation · Franz Rainer . . . . 103. Change in productivity · Carmen Scherer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1761 1781

X. Historical word-formation I: General aspects

XI. Historical word-formation II: Special cases 104. Grammaticalization in German word-formation · Mechthild Habermann . . . 105. The grammaticalization of prepositions in French word-formation · Dany Amiot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1794 1811

x

Contents 106. The Romance adverbs in -mente: a case study in grammaticalization · Ulrich Detges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107. Grammaticalization in Slavic word-formation · Krystyna Kleszczowa . . . . 108. The origin of suffixes in Romance · David Pharies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1824 1842 1854

XII. Historical word-formation III: Language sketches 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119.

Historical word-formation in German · Peter O. Müller . . . . . . . . . . Historical word-formation in English · Klaus Dietz . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Latin to Romance · Éva Buchi and Jean-Paul Chauveau . . . . . . From Latin to Romanian · Marina Rădulescu Sala . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Old French to Modern French · Franz Rainer and Claude Buridant From Old Irish to Modern Irish · David Stifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical word-formation in Slavic · Swetlana Mengel . . . . . . . . . . From Ancient Greek to Modern Greek · Io Manolessou and Angela Ralli The history of word-formation in Uralic · Johanna Laakso . . . . . . . . . From Old Hungarian to Modern Hungarian · Tamás Forgács . . . . . . . Historical word-formation in Turkish · Claus Schönig . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

1867 1914 1931 1957 1975 2000 2021 2041 2061 2079 2096

XIII. Word-formation in language acquisition and aphasia 120. Word-formation in first language acquisition · Hilke Elsen and Karin Schlipphak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121. Word-formation in second language acquisition · Cornelia Tschichold and Pius ten Hacken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122. Word-formation in aphasia · Carlo Semenza and Sara Mondini . . . . . . . .

2117 2137 2154

XIV. Word-formation and language use 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130.

Word-formation Word-formation Word-formation Word-formation Word-formation Word-formation Word-formation Word-formation

and and and and and and and and

text · Anja Seiffert . . . . . . . . . . . . brand names · Elke Ronneberger-Sibold planned languages · Klaus Schubert . . sign languages · Ronnie B. Wilbur . . . technical languages · Ivana Bozděchová literature · Peter Handler . . . . . . . . . orthography · Hannelore Poethe . . . . visuality · Lorelies Ortner . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

2178 2192 2210 2225 2251 2266 2289 2306

131. Dictionaries · Renate Belentschikow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132. Corpora · Ulrich Heid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133. Internet · Georgette Dal and Fiammetta Namer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2333 2354 2372

XV. Tools in word-formation research

Contents

Volume 5 XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages Indo-European (continued) Baltic 169. Lithuanian · Bonifacas Stundžia 170. Latvian · Agnė Navickaitė-Klišauskienė

Albanian 171. Albanian · Monica Genesin and Joachim Matzinger

Greek 172. Greek · Angela Ralli

Indo-Iranian 173. Ossetic · David Erschler 174. Tat · Gilles Authier

Non-Indo-European Uralic 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181.

Nenets · Beáta Wagner-Nagy Finnish · Kaarina Pitkänen-Heikkilä Estonian · Krista Kerge Permic · László Fejes Mari · Timothy Riese Mordvinic · Sándor Maticsák Hungarian · Ferenc Kiefer

Basque 182. Basque · Xabier Artiagoitia, José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina

Semitic 183. Maltese · Joseph Brincat and Manwel Mifsud

xi

xii

Contents Turkic 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190.

Turkish · Jens Wilkens Bashkir · Gulnara Iskandarova Tatar · László Károly Crimean Tatar · Henryk Jankowski Gagauz · Astrid Menz Karaim · Éva Á. Csató Chuvash · Galina N. Semenova and Alena M. Ivanova

Mongolic 191. Kalmyk · Danara Suseeva

Northwest Caucasian 192. Abkhaz · Viacheslav A. Chirikba 193. Adyghe · Yury Lander 194. Kabardian · Ranko Matasović

Northeast Caucasian 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207.

Rutul · Mikhail Alekseyev Budugh · Gilles Authier and Adigözel Haciyev Udi · Wolfgang Schulze Aghul · Timur Maisak and Dmitry Ganenkov Archi · Marina Chumakina Khinalug · Wolfgang Schulze Lak · Wolfgang Schulze Dargwa · Nina Sumbatova Bezhta · Madzhid Khalilov and Zaira Khalilova Botlikh · Mikhail Alekseyev Akhwakh · Denis Creissels Avar · Madzhid Khalilov and Zaira Khalilova Khwarshi · Zaira Khalilova

Subject index Map of languages

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages Indo-European Germanic 134. German 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

Abstract This article gives a brief overview of important characteristics of word-formation in German and then describes the central models of compounding, derivation and conversion according to their morphosyntactic and semantic properties, specifically differentiated for the word classes noun, adjective, verb and adverb. Since the remaining kinds of word-formation only play a secondary role in vocabulary growth, they will be given a less detailed treatment.

1. Introduction Word-formation in contemporary German is regarded as relatively thoroughly investigated, both from a diachronic and a synchronic structural-morphological perspective. Synchronic descriptions of different degrees of detail are provided by DWb 1−5 (1973− 1992), Olsen (1986), Eichinger (2000), Motsch (2004), Donalies (2005), Erben (2006), Barz (2009), Elsen (2011), Fleischer and Barz (2012). Topical questions in research on the contemporary language include the relation between word-formation and inflectional morphology on the one hand and syntax on the other, as well as systematic varietyspecific, pragmatic and text-oriented analyses. For historical word-formation in German, cf. article 109.

2388

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

2. General overview 2.1. Structural and morphosyntactic aspects Word-formation in German (also lexeme or stem formation) is characterized by the following characteristics. It has at its disposal a great wealth of productive models of formation, the quantitative and qualitative use of which are specifically regulated depending on the meaning and the word class of the output (nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs). The largest number of models can be found for the formation of nouns, using compounding and derivation as well as conversion. Also the number of suffixes is largest for nouns in comparison to adjectives and verbs. Nominal conversion is distinguished by its diversity of models as well as by the fact that, for almost all kinds, unrestricted productivity can be ascertained. Adjectives use compounding and derivation in a manner similar to nouns, although fewer models are available and these are subject to stronger restrictions. Conversion constitutes a peripheral phenomenon in the formation of adjectives. The word-formation of verbs is organized in a completely different manner. In this case, compounding and suffixal derivation only play a subordinate role. Leftward expansion of verbs through prefixes and particles dominates, along with conversion. Finally, relatively few suffix models are productive in the formation of adverbs. Just as the models of word-formation, the means of word-formation are extraordinarily multiform, especially with regard to their morphological status, their meaning and their origins. Beside uncontroversial affixes (be-, -lich, -ung) there are affixes with homonymous stems (-los vs. los ‘rid of’) and also bound elements which have both affix and stem properties (Riesenapplaus ‘giant applause’, blitzschnell ‘lightning fast’, fettarm ‘low fat; lit. fat poor’, umweltfreundlich ‘environment(ally) friendly’). The latter are conceived diachronically as a sort of transitional category, as affixoids, without it being possible to determine clear boundaries to unambiguous affixes on the one hand and to stems on the other. Their status must still be clarified from a synchronic perspective. The inventory of means of word-formation is also multiform because, in addition to the native affixes, a large number of non-native affixes exist which primarily combine with non-native bases (re|vitalisieren ‘to re|vitalize’, affekt|iv ‘affect|ive’, Abstrakt|ion ‘abstract|ion’) and in this way constitute a complementary system alongside the native constituents. Word-formation in German is also distinguished by close links to syntax. An identical sequence of words in syntactic structures and complex lexemes and a lack of morphological marking of the constituents in particular syntactic structures lead to overlap. This is apparent in adjective-verb constructions, which exhibit both properties of lexemes and syntactic structures. In the case of semantic equivalence such as in die Suppe warm stellen/warmstellen ‘to warm the soup; lit. the soup warm put’, both interpretations are acceptable. In the case of prosodic and semantic differences, on the other hand, syntactic structures and lexemes must be differentiated: frei sprechen ‘to speak without a manuscript; lit. free(ly) speak’ vs. freisprechen ‘to acquit; lit. free-speak’. In the case of noun-verb constructions, the interpretation of the structure depends on whether the noun can be assigned complement status − then the construction is consid-

134. German

2389

ered a syntactic structure (Rad fahren ‘to cycle; lit. bicycle drive’) − or whether the noun is syntactically and semantically dependent, then we have a product of wordformation (eislaufen ‘to skate; lit. ice-run’; Pittner 1998: 106−109). Double interpretations are also possible with these structures (Brust schwimmen vs. brustschwimmen ‘to swim the breast stroke; lit. breast-swim’). This is the case when the initial elements do not unambiguously behave as free nouns (Fuhrhop 2007: 52−55). Word-formation and syntax interact additionally inasmuch as word-formation models can furnish their output with specific syntactic properties. For example, the valency of the verb in so-called government or rectional compounds with deverbal second elements provides the base for their semantic interpretation: Kinder erziehen ‘to raise children; lit. children raise’ → Erziehung der Kinder ‘raising (of) the children’ → Kindererziehung ‘raising children; lit. children-raising’. Further models involving specific syntactic properties of input or output are adjectival government compounds (dem Gold ähnliches Material ‘material similar to gold; lit. theDAT gold similar material’ → goldähnliches Material ‘material similar to gold; lit. goldsimilar material’), phrase-based derivatives (in Anspruch nehmen ‘to claim (something for someone); lit. in claim take’ → Inanspruchnahme ‘claims, demands’) and participial compounds (gegen Grippe geimpft ‘vaccinated against flu; lit. against flu vaccinated’ → grippegeimpft ‘vaccinated against flu; lit. flu-vaccinated’). And finally in verbal wordformation, especially derivation with prefixes and the formation of particle verbs often lead to syntactic restructuring with respect to the base verbs, cf. jmdm. dienen ‘to serve somebody; lit. somebody-DAT serve’ → jmdn. bedienen ‘to serve somebody; lit. somebody-ACC serve’, sich jmdm. andienen ‘to offer somebody one’s services; lit. REFL somebody-DAT serve’. In German word-formation, a native and a non-native system of formation stand side by side as two relatively autonomous subsystems (Bergmann 2005: 168). A basic parallelism between the native and the non-native subsystems makes their complementary interaction possible (Seiffert 2008: 373) as, for instance, in the combination of native and non-native means of formation; the autonomy, on the other hand, provides for specific models of formation for each. On foreign word-formation in German, cf. article 93.

2.2. Semantic-functional aspects From a semantic-functional perspective, products of word-formation can be classified into modifications and transpositions. This classification captures the semantic changes the original elements undergo during the process of formation. In modification, the lexical meaning of the input is nuanced within the same semantic category and word class (Brot ‘bread’ → Roggenbrot ‘rye bread’, Ernte ‘harvest’ → Missernte ‘bad harvest’, klug ‘smart’ → unklug ‘not smart’, krank ‘sick’ → kränklich ‘sickly’). In transposition, formations result which belong to another semantic category and usually also another word class (lesen ‘to read’ → Leser ‘reader’, lesbar ‘readable’; binden ‘to bind’ → Band ‘(bound) volume’, Stadt ‘city’ → Städter ‘city dweller’). Should the fact be taken into account that affixes can contribute to very different degrees to the semantic characteristics of the products of word-formation, then transposition is defined more narrowly − as morphosyntactic transformation (klug ‘smart’ → Klugheit ‘smartness’, heute ‘today’ →

2390

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

heutig ‘of today’) − and a third functional-semantic class, mutation, is assumed (Dokulil 1968: 209). This comprises derivatives with a clearer semantic accretion with respect to the semantics of the base: malen ‘to paint’ → Maler ‘painter’. The boundaries between the classes are fluid (Ohnheiser 1987: 131).

3.

Composition

3.1. Nominal compounds 3.1.1. Morphosyntactic characteristics Almost 80 % of all German nominal compounds consist of two nominal constituents (DWb 4: 37). The constituents are simplex or complex stems (Haus|wand ‘house wall’, Schönheits|kult ‘beauty cult’, Frühjahrs|müdigkeit ‘spring tiredness’, Haustür|schloss ‘front door lock’). There are no structural restrictions with respect to the possible degree of complexity of a compound, as highly complex designations from technical vocabulary show (Lebensmittelfarbstoffzulassungs|verordnung ‘food coloring approval regulation; lit. life-means-color-stuff-approval|regulation). Though for pragmatic reasons, especially due to a universal need of speakers for brevity and clarity of designations, compounds consisting of two or three simple or derived stems dominate in non-technical communication. Usually the first element is more complex (Berufsunfähigkeits|versicherung ‘insurance against disability; lit. profession-un-able-ness|insurance’, Schadenersatz|summe ‘amount of compensation for damages; lit. damage-compensation|sum’, Hintergrund|artikel ‘background article’); right branching occurs less frequently (Teppich|fachgeschäft ‘carpet shop; lit. carpet|specialization-shop’). The first position can be occupied by stems of all word classes, by confixes, short forms, bound short forms and also by phrases: Speise|saal ‘dining hall’, Ess|besteck ‘cutlery; lit. eat-instruments’, Fein|staub ‘fine dust’, Beinahe|zusammenstoß ‘near miss; lit. almost-collision’, Rundum|schlag ‘sweeping blow; lit. round-about blow’, Auf|wind ‘up|draft’, Stief|sohn ‘step|son’, AKW-|Debatte ‘nuclear power station debate’, US-|Marine ‘US Navy’, Vor-Ort-|Termin ‘on-site appointment’, Klarsicht|folie ‘transparent film; lit. clear-view film’. Morphological restrictions limit nominal compounding inasmuch as stems with particular structures are not allowed in the first position in communicatively unmarked formations, e.g., adjective stems ending with -abel (*Komfortabelhotel ‘comfortable hotel’), -ant, -bar, -ent, -isch, -lich, -los, -mäßig, neither are verbs ending with -ig(en). German compounds are right-headed, that is, the second element determines the morphosyntactic properties of the compound. The first element is morphosyntactically dependent and is not inflected (except for the special case of phrasal compounds). It occurs either in the basic stem form (Tag| falter ‘butterfly; lit. day lepidopter’) or in stem variants (Schul|buch ‘school book’ vs. Schule, Tage|geld ‘daily benefits’, Tages|reise ‘day trip’ vs. Tag). Adjectival first elements occasionally occur in the superlative (Schwerst|arbeit ‘hard labor; lit. hardest labor’). The semantically empty elements which are added to the basic stem form are referred to as linking elements. These are, for nominal first elements, -e-, -en-, -es-, -ens-, -er-,

134. German

2391

-s-; for verbal first elements -e-; adjectival and uninflectable first elements don’t have linking elements. There are no strict rules for the placement of linking elements (Heringer 2011: 111), at best strong tendencies. Accordingly, properties of the constituents and the linking elements relating both to phonetics and syllabic phonology as well as paradigmatic-analogical aspects can be determining factors for the form of the linking elements. The syllabic linking elements -e-, -en-, -er-, -ens- ensure, for example, the trochaic disyllabicity which is preferred for monosyllabic first elements in German (Tage|lohn ‘daily wage’, Helden|stadt ‘city of heroes’, Häuser|meer ‘sea of houses’). The non-syllabic linking element -s- on the other hand highlights the boundary between first and second elements (Gehalts|liste ‘payroll’, Arbeits|zeit ‘work hours’; Wegener 2003: 446−456). Polysemous first elements occasionally exhibit linking elements which are specific to a particular reading: (Herz|chirurg ‘heart surgeon’ − Herz ‘heart’ in the reading ‘organ’; Herzens|angelegenheit ‘topic close to one’s heart; lit. heart matter’ − Herz ‘heart’ in a metaphorical reading). Their use, which partially overrides phonotactic principles, can be explained with the help of analogy. Lexicalized compounds function as models for further formations, such as Herzdiagnose ‘heart diagnosis’, -zentrum ‘-center’; Herzensbildung ‘nobleness of the heart; lit. heart education’, -wunsch ‘-wish’ (Becker 1992: 14− 16). For further discussions see article 32 on linking elements in Germanic.

3.1.2. Semantic characteristics In the typical nominal compounds of German, the determinative compounds, the first element is semantically subordinate to the second element. The determined second element represents as a hyperonym the complex word, the determining first element restricts the extension of the second element, e.g., Tagesreise ‘day trip’ (i.e. ‘trip which takes a day’). Compounds with a coordinative relation between the elements, i.e. coordinative compounds, are rare (Hörerleser ‘listener-reader’, Spielertrainer ‘player-coach’); most of them can also be interpreted as determinative, depending on the context (Motsch 2004: 377). The word-formation meaning of the nominal determinative compounds, that is, the semantic relation between first and second element, results from morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the immediate constituents. In the case of nominal first elements, three groups can be distinguished: In the first group, there are basic semantic relations between the constituents (Fandrych and Thurmair 1994: 39), e.g., local: Straßenbelag ‘road surface’, temporal: Monatsplan ‘monthly plan’, causal: Schmerzensschrei ‘cry of pain’, instrumental: Handbremse ‘handbrake’. To this group belong as well metaphorical compounds, in which the first or second member is used figuratively: Marathonsitzung ‘marathon session’, Kostenlawine ‘explosion of costs; lit. cost avalanche’. In the second group the word-formation meaning is determined by properties resulting from the valency of the second element. The first element is the ‘patient’ of the indicated action, as in Kinder erziehen ‘to raise children; lit. children raise’ → Kindererziehung ‘raising children; lit. children-raising’ or ‘agent’, as in Direktoren tagen ‘directors meet’ → Direktorentagung ‘meeting of directors; lit. directors-meeting’.

2392

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

In the case of occasional compounds, not only the meaning of the constituents but also the context ultimately characterize the word-formation meaning: der Streit um die Elefanten ‘the argument about the elephants’ or der Streit der Elefanten ‘the argument of_the elephants’ → Elefantenstreit ‘elephant argument’. In compounds with an adjectival first element, this first element characterizes either an outstanding property of the designated object (Steilküste ‘cliff; lit. steep coast’, Süßkirsche ‘sweet cherry’) or it expresses an intensification or a diminution (Großbrand ‘large fire’, Schwachstrom ‘weak current’). Important word-formation meanings for compounds with a verbal first element are ‘purpose’ (Rasierapparat ‘electric razor; lit. shave-apparatus’), ‘active’ (Putzfrau ‘cleaning lady’), ‘passive’ (Räucheraal ‘smoked eel’); cf. Fleischer and Barz (2012: 162− 164).

3.2. Adjectival compounds 3.2.1. Morphosyntactic characteristics As is the case for nominal compounds, compounding involving constituents of the same word class also dominates in adjectives (dunkel|blau ‘dark blue’). Other first elements before adjectival second elements are nominal stems (herz|krank ‘suffering from a heart condition; lit. heart-sick’, EU-|weit ‘EU-wide’) and verb stems (bügel|arm ‘iron-free’); very rarely uninflectable words (vor|schnell ‘hastily; lit. pre-fast’) and confixes (thermo|elektrisch ‘thermoelectric’). Usually, compounds with a participle as second element are also counted among the adjectival compounds. These are then either isolated participle forms, which clearly have the status of adjectives (hoch|begabt ‘highly gifted’, alt|bekannt ‘well-known; lit. oldknown’), or which are also common as verb forms (hände|ringend ‘imploring; lit. handwringing’ − um Fassung ringend ‘struggling to keep one’s composure; lit. around composure struggling’). When the participles are not opaque, a phrase with identical or similar phonological form can be used (besorgnis|erregende Zustände ‘alarming situation; lit. concern-raising states’ − Besorgnis erregende Zustände ‘alarming situation; lit. concern raising states’, ein fernseh|bekannter Moderator ‘a moderator known through television; lit. a television-known moderator’ − ein durch das Fernsehen bekannter Moderator ‘a moderator known through television; lit. a through the television known moderator’). While the phrase designates a temporary property, the compound tends to be conceptually fixed. If this difference is lacking, the combination can alternatively be used as a word or a phrase. The adjectival compounds are, as are the nominal compounds, right-headed and not inflectable word-internally; superlative forms, though, can occur in first position: schnellst|mögliche Entscheidung ‘fastest possible decision’. Compounds rarely consist of more than two stems, they are then usually left branching (kornblumen|blau ‘cornflower blue’). Adjectival compounds can contain linking elements. As in the case of nouns, the form of the linking element usually depends on the phonological form and the morphology of the first element (DWb 5: 25−27); for the most part, the same linking elements occur.

134. German

2393

Nominal first elements have the linking elements -s- (bildungsfern ‘less educated; lit. education-far’), -es- (tagesaktuell ‘on a daily basis; lit. day-current’), -n- (taubenblau ‘pigeon blue’), -ens- (herzensgut ‘kindhearted; lit. heart-good’). In the case of verbal first elements with stem final b, d, g, the linking element -e- can be inserted (badewarm ‘warm enough to swim; lit. bathe-warm’, gebefreudig ‘generous; lit. give-joyful’; cf. also nouns such as Badeschuh ‘bathe slippers’, Lebemann ‘playboy; lit. live-man’, Zeigefinger ‘index finger; lit. point-finger’). A special characteristic of adjectival word-formation is the strong tendency to form series with particular simplex and complex adjectives in second position. This concerns, among others, -arm ‘poor’, (abgas- ‘exhaust’, alkohol- ‘alcohol’, antriebs- ‘propulsion’, arten- ‘species’, baum- ‘tree’, blut- ‘blood’, ehrgeiz- ‘ambition’, energie- ‘energy’, erlebnisarm ‘uneventful; lit. experience-poor’, etc.), -fertig ‘finished’, -fest ‘solid’, -frei ‘free’, -gerecht ‘appropriate’, -intensiv ‘intensive’, -leer ‘empty’, -reich ‘rich’, -sicher ‘certain, safe’, -tüchtig ‘capable’, -weit ‘far’, -wert ‘worth’, -würdig ‘worthy’. Usually, independent lexemes occur along with these second elements (arm ‘poor’ − -arm), but some also develop through reanalysis of denominal derivatives (Birnenform ‘pear shape’ → birnenförmig ‘pear-shaped’ → -förmig ‘shaped’). They differ from phonologically identical free lexemes by a more general meaning, occurrence in series, a characteristic distribution, a lack of ability to function as a base, as well as through a complementary distribution with affixes (Erben 2006: 144; Motsch 2004: 11), whereby not all of these properties are developed for each element. In comparison to affixes, these bound elements are mostly semantically more definite and precise, cf. biegsam ‘flexible’ vs. biegefähig ‘able to be bent’, glockig ‘bell-like’ vs. glockenförmig ‘bell-shaped’. They establish − in contrast to suffixes − a clear semantic relation between the first member and referential noun and permit among other things the expression of relations, for which in German no suffixes are available (baumarme Landschaft ‘landscape with few trees; lit. tree-poor landscape’, krisenfeste Stelle ‘crisis-proof position’). Because of their specific properties and their importance for adjectival word-formation, these formations should be treated as a special kind of word-formation, as lexematic nexus formations (Ger. “lexematische Junktionsbildungen”, Fandrych 2011: 142). A pending task of synchronic research consists of working out their communicative functions more clearly than has been done until now.

3.2.2. Semantic characteristics As in the case of nouns, one differentiates with adjectives between determinative and coordinative compounds (blutrot ‘blood-red’ vs. süßsauer ‘sweet-sour’). The quantitatively dominating word-formation meanings of determinative compounds are ‘similative’ and ‘intensive’ (aalglatt ‘slippery as an eel; lit. eel-smooth’, zitronengelb ‘lemon yellow’, hellblau ‘light blue’, hochexplosiv ‘highly explosive’).

2394

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

3.3. Verbal compounds If one chooses stability as the central feature of compounding, only a few verbal products of word-formation can be called compounds, namely complex verbs consisting of two verb stems (sprechsingen ‘to sing in a recitative style; lit. speak-sing’, grinskeuchen ‘to gasp with a grin; lit. grin-gasp’). They are morphologically and syntactically inseparable. More than two verb stems are not combined. One can interpret them as determinative or coordinative depending on the meaning of the constituents and the context: ‘to sing in a speaking style’ or ‘to speak and sing’. If, on the other hand, the word status of the constituents counts as a classifying feature, separable complex verbs with adjectival, adverbial and nominal first element also belong to compounding (hochklappen ‘to fold up’, wegfahren ‘to drive away’, teilnehmen ‘to take part’; Eichinger 2000: 106−110).

3.4. Adverbial compounds Compounding is limited in adverbs inasmuch as hardly any new formations occur. To the adverbial compounds belong right-headed compounds such as woher ‘wherefrom’, dahin ‘thither; lit. here-towards’, dorthin ‘thither; lit. there-towards’ as well as compounds with prepositional second elements. These are the closed classes of prepositional adverbs with the first elements da(r)- ‘there’, wo(r)- ‘where’, hier- ‘here’ (damit ‘therewith’, daran ‘thereon’, wogegen ‘against what; lit. where-against’, woran ‘whereon’, hieran ‘hereon’) and prepositional second elements as well as others with adverbs, prepositions, adjectives and nouns as first elements and prepositions as second elements (heran ‘(come) close’, nebenan ‘next door; lit. besides-at’, kurzum ‘in short; lit. shortaround’, bergauf ‘uphill; lit. hill-up’). Adverbial compounding deviates from nominal compounding in various ways. The degree of complexity of the formations is limited; adverbs consisting of two or three elements are common: daher ‘therefrom’, überallhin ‘everywhere; lit. over-all-towards’. Adverbs consisting of three elements, combined in the same order as in phrases, can be separated, and then have phrasal accent: sie gehen dorthinauf/dort hinauf ‘they go upthere/up there’. A systematic semantic description is hardly possible, due to the frequent lack of motivation of the compounds. Only the expression of directional meanings of adverbs with her and hin as first or second element is relatively systematically developed; her designates a movement towards the speaker, hin away from the speaker: herüber ‘over here’, dorther ‘from there’; hinüber ‘across’, dorthin ‘thither’. But here as well there are many opaque formations, which are only formally segmentable: immerhin ‘after all’, mithin ‘therefore’, nachher ‘afterwards’, vorher ‘before’, vorhin ‘earlier on’. Adverbs with nominal first elements are on the other hand usually fully motivated. They correspond semantically to lexically identical phrases: flussabwärts paddeln ‘to paddle downstream; lit. to stream-downwards paddle’ − den Fluss abwärts paddeln lit. ‘the stream downwards paddle’; tagsüber nichts essen ‘to not eat anything during the day; lit. day-over nothing eat’ − den Tag über nichts essen lit. ‘the day over nothing eat’.

134. German

2395

4. Derivation Depending on the affixes which are involved, one differentiates between prefix derivation (Glück ‘luck’ → Unglück ‘bad luck’, alt ‘old’ → uralt ‘very old’, grüßen ‘to greet’ → begrüßen ‘to welcome’), suffix derivation (schön ‘pretty’ → Schönheit ‘prettiness’, erklären ‘to explain’ → erklärbar ‘explainable’, Krise ‘crisis’ → kriseln ‘to go through a crisis’) and − rather a peripheral phenomena in German − circumfix derivation (reden ‘speak’ → Ge|red|e ‘gossip’, aufhalten ‘to stop’ → un|aufhalt|sam ‘unstoppable’, Erde ‘earth’ → be|erd|igen ‘to bury’). Prefixes combine exclusively with bases in the form of words; in the case of suffixes, lexemes are derived from stems, confixes and phrases. The most important productive derivational models of the contemporary language are collected in the following tables (cf. Barz 2009: 727−732).

4.1. Nominal derivation Significantly more affixes are available for the derivation of nouns than for the derivation of adjectives, verbs and adverbs. The number of models is still greater due to the fact that most affixes are polyfunctional. The suffix -er, e.g., forms agent nouns, action nouns and instrument nouns from verbs (Maler ‘painter’, Jauchzer ‘jubilant cheer’, Schalter ‘switch’).

4.1.1. Denominal nouns The bases of the denominal derivational models are nominal stems and noun phrases. Models of transposition and modification must be differentiated. Tab. 134.1: Denominal nouns derived by transposition Kind of transposition Status nouns

Affix

Example

-ismus

Tyrannei ‘tyranny’ ← Tyrann ‘tyrant’ Paktiererei ‘deal making’ ← paktieren ‘to strike a deal’ Patriarchat ‘patriarchy’ ← Patriarch ‘patriarch’ Feindschaft ‘enmity’ ← Feind ‘enemy’ Abenteurertum ‘adventurousness’ ← Abenteurer ‘adventurer’ Despotismus ‘despotism’ ← Despot ‘despot’

Personal nouns

-ant -er -ler -iker -ist

Asylant ‘asylum seeker’ ← Asyl ‘asylum’ Musiker ‘musician’ ← Musik ‘music’ Künstler ‘artist’ ← Kunst ‘art’ Alkoholiker ‘alcoholic’ ← Alkohol ‘alcohol’ Gitarrist ‘guitarist’ ← Gitarre ‘guitar’

Place nouns

-(er)ei

Ziegelei ‘brickworks’ ← Ziegel ‘brick’ Käserei ‘cheesery’ ← Käse ‘cheese’

-(er)ei -(i)at -schaft -tum

2396

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 134.2: Denominal nouns derived by modification Kind of modification Diminution

Affix -chen -lein

Example Kindchen ‘little child’ ← Kind ‘child’ Mäuschen ‘little mouse’ ← Maus ‘mouse’ Kindlein ‘little child’ ← Kind ‘child’ Mäuslein ‘little mouse’ ← Maus ‘mouse’

Augmentation

unerz-

Unsumme ‘enormous sum’ ← Summe ‘sum’ Erzfeind ‘archenemy’ ← Feind ‘enemy’

Gender marking

-in -euse

Malerin ‘female painter’ ← Maler ‘painter’ Ärztin ‘female physician’ ← Arzt ‘physician’ Masseuse ‘female masseur’ ← Masseur ‘masseur’

Collectives

-schaft -heit

Schülerschaft ‘student body’ ← Schüler ‘pupils’ Christenheit ‘Christendom’ ← Christ ‘Christian’

Negation

un-

Unvermögen ‘inability’ ← Vermögen ‘ability’

Valuation

missunur-

Missernte ‘bad harvest’ ← Ernte ‘harvest’ Untat ‘misdeed’ ← Tat ‘deed’ Urform ‘original form’ ← form ‘Form’

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Tab. 134.3: Deadjectival nouns Kind of transposition Quality nouns

Affix -heit/-keit/ -igkeit -ismus -ität -e -nis -schaft

Personal nouns

-ling -chen -i

Example Dunkelheit ‘darkness’ ← dunkel ‘dark’ Sauberkeit ‘cleanliness’ ← sauber ‘clean’ Trostlosigkeit ‘hopelessness’ ← trostlos ‘hopeless’ Radikalismus ‘radicalism’ ← radikal ‘radical’ Naivität ‘naiveté’ ← naiv ‘naive’ Größe ‘greatness’ ← groß ‘great’ Düsternis ‘somberness’ ← düster ‘somber’ Bereitschaft ‘readiness’ ← bereit ‘ready’ Fremdling ‘stranger’ ← fremd ‘strange’ Schwächling ‘weakling’ ← schwach ‘weak’ Frühchen ‘preemie’ ← früh ‘early’ Dummi ‘dummy’ ← dumm ‘dumb’

134. German

2397

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns Tab. 134.4: Deverbal nouns Kind of transposition Action nouns

Affix -e -(er)ei -er ge-…-e/ge-

-ion/-ation

-ung

Example Absage ‘cancellation’ ← absagen ‘to cancel’ Hüstelei ‘(repeated) coughing’ ← hüsteln ‘to cough’ Schufterei ‘drudgery’ ← schuften ‘to toil’ Seufzer ‘sigh’ ← seufzen ‘to sigh’ Gesinge ‘(constant, annoying) singing’ ← singen ‘to sing’ Angebelle ‘(constant, annoying) barking at’ ← anbellen ‘to bark at’ Gewimmel ‘bustling activity’ ← wimmeln ‘to swarm’ Diskussion ‘discussion’ ← diskutieren ‘to discuss’ Manipulation ‘manipulation’ ← manipulieren ‘to manipulate’ Deutung ‘interpretation’ ← deuten ‘to interpret’ Verlangsamung ‘slowing down’ ← verlangsamen ‘to slow down’

Agent nouns

-er -eur -i

Maler ‘painter’ ← malen ‘to paint’ Kontrolleur ‘controller’ ← kontrollieren ‘to control’ Knacki ‘convict’ ← knacken ‘to crack’

Instrument nouns

-e -el -er

Bremse ‘brake’ ← bremsen ‘to brake’ Deckel ‘cover’ ← decken ‘to cover’ Schalter ‘switch’ ← schalten ‘to switch’

Place nouns

-e

Umkleide ‘dressing room’ ← umkleiden ‘to change clothes’ Bügelei ‘ironing shop’ ← bügeln ‘to iron’ Druckerei ‘printing shop’ ← drucken ‘to print’

-(er)ei Patient nouns

-e -er (ge-)…-sel -ling -ung

Spende ‘donation’ ← spenden ‘to donate’ Aufkleber ‘sticker’ ← aufkleben ‘to stick on’ Anhängsel ‘appendage’ ← anhängen ‘to hang on’ Geschreibsel ‘scribblings’ ← schreiben ‘to write’ Impfling ‘vaccine recipient’ ← impfen ‘to vaccinate’ Sammlung ‘collection’ ← sammeln ‘to collect’

4.2. Adjectival derivation The most important kind of derivation of adjectives is suffix derivation. Verbal and nominal stems are turned into adjectives with the help of the suffixes -bar, -ig, -isch, -lich, -mäßig. Only weakly productive are -sam (heilen ‘to heal’ → heilsam ‘healing’) and -haft (Frühling ‘spring’ → frühlingshaft ‘spring-like’). Prefix derivatives are produced mainly via the negating prefix un-. The following tables contain a selection of construction models. The adjectives are used in attribute position with a typical referential word.

2398

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives Bases are nominal stems and noun phrases. Tab. 134.5: Denominal adjectives Kind of transposition Adjectives of resemblance

Affix

traumhaft(e Reise) ‘wonderful (trip)’ ← Traum ‘dream’ mehlig(e Birne) ‘mealy (pear)’ ← Mehl ‘flour’ träumerisch(e Augen) ‘dreamy (eyes)’ ← Träumer ‘dreamer’ kindlich(es Verhalten) ‘childlike (behavior)’ ← Kind ‘child’ geschäftsmäßig(es Vorgehen) ‘businesslike (approach)’ ← Geschäft ‘business’

-haft -ig -isch -lich -mäßig

Possessive (ornative) adjectives

-haft -ig

-isch -lich be-/ge-…-t Privative adjectives

Example

fehlerhaft(es Diktat) ‘flawed (dictation)’ ← Fehler ‘mistake’ ölig(e Substanz) ‘oily (substance)’ ← Öl ‘oil’ blauäugig(es Kind) ‘blue-eyed (child)’ ← blaue Augen ‘blue eyes’ neidisch(er Nachbar) ‘envious (neighbor)’ ← Neid ‘envy’ widersprüchlich(es Urteil) ‘contradictory (verdict)’ ← Widerspruch ‘contradiction’ bemoost(er Stein) ‘mossy (stone)’ ← Moos ‘moss’ genarbt(es Leder) ‘grained (leather)’ ← Narbe ‘grain’ humorlos(er Text) ‘humorless (text)’ ← Humor ‘humor’

-los

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Tab. 134.6: Deadjectival adjectives Kind of modification

Affix

Example

Negation

una(n)-

unklug(e Entscheidung) ‘unwise (decision)’ ← klug ‘smart’ atypisch(e Form) ‘atypical (form)’ ← typisch ‘typical’ anorganisch(e Chemie) ‘inorganic (chemistry)’ ← organisch ‘organic’

Intensification

erz-

erzreaktionär(er Politiker) ‘ultra-reactionary (politician)’ ← reaktionär ‘reactionary’ urkomisch(e Situation) ‘hilarious (situation)’ ← komisch ‘comical’ grünlich(es Sekret) ‘greenish (secretion)’ ← grün ‘greenish’

ur-lich Quantification

bi-

binational(e Konferenz) ‘bi-national (conference)’ ← national ‘national’

134. German

2399

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Bases are verbal stems and verb phrases. Tab. 134.7: Deverbal adjectives Kind of transposition Active-modal adjectives ‘that can V’

Affix -abel -bar -(er)isch

Dispositional adjectives ‘that tends to V’

-(er)lich -haft -ig

-iv -sam Active adjectives

un-…-lich

Passive-modal adjectives ‘that can be Ved’

-abel -bar -lich -sam un-…-lich/ -bar/-sam

Example rentabl(e Firma) ‘profitable (company)’ ← rentieren ‘to be profitable’ brennbar(e Flüssigkeit) ‘flammable (liquid)’ ← brennen ‘to burn’ zänkisch(e Nachbarin) ‘quarrelsome (neighbor)’ ← zanken ‘to quarrel’ weinerlich(es Kind) ‘whining (child)’ ← weinen ‘to cry’ schwatzhaft(e Schülerin) ‘chatty (pupil)’ ← schwatzen ‘to chat’ rührig(er Chef) ‘active (boss)’ ← rühren ‘to stir’ leichtgläubig(e Partnerin) ‘gullible (partner)’ ← leicht glauben ‘to believe’ informativ(e Veranstaltung) ‘informative (event)’ ← informieren ‘to inform’ bedeutsam(e Entdeckung) ‘significant (discovery)’ ← bedeuten ‘to mean’ unermüdlich(er Helfer) ‘tireless (helper)’ ← ermüden ‘to become tired’ akzeptabl(e Lösung) ‘acceptable (solution)’ ← akzeptieren ‘to accept’ lieferbar(e Ware) ‘deliverable (goods)’ ← liefern ‘to deliver’ erblich(e Krankheit) ‘hereditary disease’ ← erben ‘to inherit’ biegsam(er Stab) ‘flexible (staff)’ ← biegen ‘to bend’ unglaublich(e Geschichte) ‘unbelievable (story)’ ← glauben ‘to believe’ unverkennbar(e Handschrift) ‘unmistakable (handwriting)’ ← verkennen ‘to misjudge’ unaufhaltsam(e Entwicklung) ‘unstoppable (development)’ ← aufhalten ‘to stop’

4.3. Verbal derivation and particle-verb formation Verbal prefix derivatives are morphologically and syntactically inseparable, the prefix is unstressed: verbrauchen ‘to consume’ − verbrauchte ‘consumed’ − hat verbraucht ‘has consumed’, umrunden ‘to go around’ − umrundete ‘went around’ − hat umrundet ‘has gone around’. They are formed with prefixes without homonymous particles (be-, ent-, er-, ver-, zer-) and prefixes with homonymous particles (durch-, über-, um-, unter-). In the case of particle verbs, the verb particle carries word stress, the verbs are morphologi-

2400

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

cally and syntactically separable: anrechnen ‘to credit’ − rechnete an ‘credited’ − hat angerechnet ‘has credited’. Suffix derivatives are formed with -(e)l(n) and -ier/-isier/ -ifizier(en): lächeln ‘to smile’, computerisieren ‘to computerize’. The suffix -ig(en) (festigen ‘to consolidate’) is unproductive. In order to clarify each intended verbal reading, a context noun is added in the following summary.

4.3.1. Denominal verbs a) Prefix and suffix derivation Tab. 134.8: Denominal verbs derived with prefixes and suffixes Word-formation meaning Ornative ‘to provide with N’

Affix beüberumunterver-isier(en)

Agentive ‘to act as/in the manner of N’

bever-ier(en)

Example (den Umschlag) beschriften ‘to write on (the envelope)’ ← Schrift ‘writing’ (den Vorbau) überdachen ‘to roof (the front building)’ ← Dach ‘roof’ (das Rohr) ummanteln ‘to sheathe (the pipe)’ ← Mantel ‘sheath’ (das Haus) unterkellern ‘to build (the house) with a cellar’ ← Keller ‘cellar’ (den Ring) vergolden ‘to gild (the ring)’ ← Gold ‘gold’ (den Fluss) kanalisieren ‘to canalize (the river)’ ← Kanal ‘canal’ (den Sohn) bemuttern ‘to mother (the son)’ ← Mutter ‘mother’ (die Patientin) verarzten ‘to doctor (the patient)’ ← Arzt ‘doctor’ spionieren ‘to spy’ ← Spion ‘spy’

Privative ‘to remove N’

ent-

(den Fisch) entgräten ‘to bone (the fish)’ ← Gräte ‘fishbone’

Causative ‘to make into N’

verzer-

(den Text) vertonen ‘to set (the text) to music’ ← Ton ‘tone’ (den Fels) zertrümmern ‘to smash (the rock)’ ← Trümmer ‘debris, rubble’ (die Erde) häufeln ‘to pile up (the dirt)’ ← Haufen ‘pile’ (das Material) pulverisieren ‘to pulverize (the material)’ ← Pulver ‘powder’

-(e)l(n) -isier(en) Inchoative ‘to become N’

ver-

versumpfen (Land) ‘to turn (land) into swamp’ ← Sumpf ‘swamp’

Instrumental ‘to act with N’

überverzer-

(das Tier) überlisten ‘to trick (the animal)’ ← List ‘guile’ (die Tür) verriegeln ‘to bolt (the door)’ ← Riegel ‘bolt’ (das Gebäude) zerbomben ‘to bomb (the building)’ ← Bombe ‘bomb’

134. German

2401

b) Particle-verb formation Only prepositional verb particles combine with nominal bases. Adverbial and adjectival verb particles (her ‘movement towards speaker’, hinauf ‘up there’, fest ‘firm’, frei ‘free’, etc.) cannot on the other hand trigger a change in word class with respect to the base. Tab. 134.9: Denominal particle verbs Word-formation meaning

Verb particle

Instrumental ‘to act with N’

anaufeinzu-

Example (den Kletterer) anseilen ‘to rope up (the climber)’ ← Seil ‘rope’ (die Ausgaben) aufschlüsseln ‘to break down (the expenses)’ ← Schlüssel ‘key’ (die Initialen) einmeißeln ‘to engrave (the initials)’ ← Meißel ‘chisel’ (die Flasche) zukorken ‘to cork up (the wine)’ ← Korken ‘cork’

Locative ‘to put into N’

ein-

(die Ware) eintüten ‘to bag the goods’ ← Tüte ‘bag’

Privative ‘to remove N’

ab-

(Johannisbeeren) abbeeren ‘to destalk the currants’ ← Beere ‘berry’ (den Stall) ausmisten ‘to muck out the stall’ ← Mist ‘manure’

aus-

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs a) Prefix and suffix derivation Tab. 134.10: Deadjectival verbs derived with prefixes and suffixes Word-formation meaning

Affix

Example

Inchoative ‘to become A’

erver-

erbleichen (Person) ‘to blanch (person)’ ← bleich ‘pale’ vereinsamen (Person) ‘to become lonely (person)’ ← einsam ‘lonely’

Causative ‘to make A’

bedurch-

(das Kind) befähigen ‘to enable (the child)’ ← fähig ‘able’ (das Tragwerk) durchfeuchten ‘to soak (the supporting structure)’ ← feucht ‘damp’ (Fördergeld) entfremden ‘to misappropriate (aid money)’ ← fremd ‘strange’ (die Spieler) erfrischen ‘to refresh (the players)’ ← frisch ‘fresh’ (das Unglück) verharmlosen ‘to play down (the accident)’ ← harmlos ‘harmless’ (das Team) komplettieren ‘to complete (the team)’ ← komplett ‘complete’ (den Text) aktualisieren ‘to update (the text)’ ← aktuell ‘current’

enterver-ier -isier(en) Agentive ‘to behave A’

-el(n)

fremdeln ‘to be shy with strangers’ ← fremd ‘strange’

2402

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

b) Particle-verb formation Tab. 134.11: Deadjectival particle verbs Word-formation meaning

Verb particle

Inchoative ‘to become A’

ab-

abflauen (Sturm) ‘to wane (storm)’ ← flau ‘weak’

Causative ‘to make A’

ab-

(die Kante) abschrägen ‘to bevel (the edge)’ ← schräg ‘slanting’ (die Oberfläche) anrauen ‘to rough up (the surface)’ ← rau ‘rough’ (den Kranken) aufmuntern ‘to cheer up (the sick)’ ← munter ‘cheerful’ (den Betrunkenen) ausnüchtern ‘to sober up (the drunk)’ ← nüchtern ‘sober’ (den Schüler) einschüchtern ‘to intimidate (the pupil)’ ← schüchtern ‘shy’

anaufausein-

Example

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs a) Prefix and suffix derivation Tab. 134.12: Deverbal verbs derived with prefixes and suffixes Word-formation meaning Ingressive ‘to begin to V’

Affix enter-

Example entbrennen (Machtkampf) ‘to erupt (power struggle)’ ← brennen ‘to burn’ (den Vogel) erblicken ‘to catch sight of (the bird)’ ← blicken ‘to glance’

Egressive ‘to stop Ving’

ver-

verblühen (Blume) ‘to wither (flower)’ ← blühen ‘to bloom’

Intensive ‘to V intensely’

be-

(das Kind) beschützen ‘to protect (the child)’ ← schützen ‘to protect’ (im Betrieb) verbleiben ‘to remain (in the plant)’ ← bleiben ‘to stay’ (das Kabel) zertrennen ‘to sever (the cable)’ ← trennen ‘to separate’

verzerDestructive ‘to V into pieces’

zer-

(Porzellan) zerschlagen ‘to smash (the porcelain)’ ← schlagen ‘to hit’

Negative ‘not to V’

über-

(die Kritik) überhören ‘to not hear (the criticism)’ ← hören ‘to hear’ (die Kunst) verachten ‘to despise (the art)’ ← achten ‘to respect’

ver-

134. German

2403

Tab. 134.12: (continued) Word-formation meaning Diminutiveiterative ‘to V a little, repeatedly’

Affix -(e)l(n)

Example hüsteln ‘to cough a bit’ ← husten ‘to cough’

The prefixation of verbs is often accompanied by a restructuring of the valency frame of the base. The prefixes be-, er- and ver-, e.g., can make the base transitive: auf der Straße fahren ‘to drive on the street’ → die Straße befahren ‘to drive on the street; lit. to drive the street’, um den Pokal kämpfen ‘to fight for the cup’ → den Pokal erkämpfen ‘to win the cup; lit. to fight the cup’, über jmdn. lachen ‘to laugh about someone’ → jmdn. verlachen ‘to ridicule someone’. Incorporation is present when the prefix shifts the meaning of a prepositional argument into the meaning of the verb: Folie über das Loch kleben ‘to stick film over the hole’ → das Loch mit Folie be-/überkleben ‘to seal up the hole with film’. b) Particle-verb formation Prepositional, adverbial, adjectival and − in a very limited manner − nominal verb particles combine with verbal bases. The complex verbs designate particular phases or manners of progression of the occurrences expressed in the base verb. The valency of the verb can thereby change. In view of the semantic and grammatical diversity of particle-verb formation in German only exemplary, important models of formation with prepositional verb particles are listed here. Tab. 134.13: Deverbal particle verbs Word-formation meaning Locative ‘to V upwards or downwards’; ‘to be brought in contact with’; ‘to be placed in/ taken out of’

Verb particle ab-/aufanaus-/ein-

Locative and temporal ‘to V through N’;

durch-

‘to V before/after N’

vor-/nach-

Egressive ‘to stop Ving’

abaus-

Example

ab-/aufsteigen (vom Fahrrad/auf das Fahrrad) ‘to get off/on (the bicycle)’ ← steigen ‘to climb’ (den Hund) anbinden ‘to leash up (the dog)’ ← binden ‘to tie’ (das Geschenk) ein-/auspacken ‘to wrap/unwrap (the gift)’ ← packen ‘to pack’ durchkriechen (durch die Öffnung) ‘to crawl through (the opening)’ ← kriechen ‘to crawl’ (eine Szene) vor-/nachspielen ‘to act out, imitate (a scene)’ ← spielen ‘to play’ abblühen (Rose) ‘to wilt (rose)’ ← blühen ‘to bloom’ (die Aufgabe) ausrechnen ‘to work out (the assignment)’ ← rechnen ‘to calculate’

2404

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 134.13: (continued) Word-formation meaning Ingressive ‘to begin to V’

Verb particle anauf-

Intensive

abauf-

Example (am Berg) anfahren ‘to start driving (on an incline)’ ← fahren ‘to drive’ (vor Schreck) aufschreien ‘to let out a shriek’ ← schreien ‘to shout’ (den Text) abändern ‘to revise (the text)’ ← ändern ‘to change’ (Fehler) aufzeigen ‘to point out (the mistake)’ ← zeigen ‘to point’

Especially her and hin as well as corresponding complex forms (heran, hinauf) are productive as adverbial verb particles, and specifically preferred with verbs of locomotion and verbs of transportation (hinaufsteigen ‘to climb up’, herüberreichen ‘to hand over’), but also with verbs with other meanings. In each case, they add a directional component: seinen Ärger herausschreien ‘to scream out in (his) anger’, Hilfe herbeirufen ‘to call for help (to come)’. Primarily adjectives occur as adverbial verb particles: festfahren ‘to get stuck; lit. fixed-drive’, freisprechen ‘to acquit; lit. free-speak’, hochheben ‘to lift up; lit. high-lift’.

4.4. Adverbial derivation A systematic differentiation between adjective and adverb in terms of derivational morphology as in English or French does not exist in German. Only a few suffix models are used for the formation of adverbs. Prefix and circumfix derivation do not occur. The suffixes -s (anfangs ‘initially’ ← Anfang ‘beginning’), -halber (umzugshalber ‘due to the move’ ← Umzug ‘move’), -wärts (himmelwärts ‘towards heaven’ ← Himmel ‘heaven’), -weise (andeutungsweise ‘allusively’ ← Andeutung ‘allusion’) combine with nouns. Adverbs with -ermaßen (konsequentermaßen ‘consistently’ ← konsequent ‘consistent’), preferred bases are departicipial adjectives (bekanntermaßen ‘as is generally known’ ← bekannt ‘known’), and -(er)weise (angenehmerweise ‘pleasantly’ ← angenehm ‘pleasant’, berechtigterweise ‘in an authorized manner’ ← berechtigt ‘authorized’) are derived from adjectives. Adverbs ending in -(er)weise are inflected like adjectives in attributive position before verbal nouns: blattweises Scannen ‘scanning sheet by sheet’ ← Blatt ‘sheet’.

5. Conversion In conversion, lexemes are shifted into another word class. In the case of morphological conversion, this occurs without morphological alteration of the input (hoch ‘high’ → das Hoch ‘the high’); in the case of syntactic conversion, the output retains an inflection-

134. German

2405

al feature of the input (lesen ‘to read’ → das Lesen ‘the reading’, alt ‘old’ → der/die Alte ‘the old person’, ein Alter/eine Alte ‘an old person’).

5.1. Nominal conversion Words of all word classes can generally be the input to nominal conversion; most often verbs, adjectives and particles are converted. Also phrases occur as bases (sich den Kopf zerbrechen ‘to rack one’s brain’ → das Kopfzerbrechen ‘headache, worry’). Verbal base forms are the infinitive as well as also the present, preterite or participial stem (benehmen ‘to behave’ → das Benehmen ‘the manners’, rufen ‘to call’ → der Ruf ‘the call’, binden ‘to bind’ → das Band ‘string, cord’, trinken ‘to drink’ → der Trunk ‘the drink’, Trank ‘drink’). In the case of adjectival or participial bases, inflected forms are the input (der/ein fremde/r Gast ‘the unfamiliar guest’ → der/ein Fremde/r ‘the stranger’, angestellt ‘employed’ → der/ein Angestellte/r ‘the employee’). Only in the case of a few adjectives are uninflected base forms converted (nass ‘wet’ → das Nass ‘the wetness’). Since syntactic conversion shares certain contexts with its input (irren/Irren ist menschlich ‘to err is human’, der kranke Schüler ‘the sick pupil’/der Kranke ‘the invalid’), its interpretation as a phenomenon of word-formation is controversial (Eichinger 2000: 39−40). The closeness to syntax is indicated in particular by a peripheral position in the secondary word class, as the forms don’t have all inflectional properties: deverbal nouns don’t generally have a plural (counterexample: die Schreiben ‘the letters; lit. the write’), deadjectival or departicipial nouns retain adjectival inflection.

5.2. Adjectival conversion Bases of adjectival conversion are mainly participles. Nouns are preferred for conversion to adjectives in the fashion industry for the production of color terms such as (eine Handtasche in) creme/cognac/türkis ‘(a handbag in) cream/cognac/turquoise’, which is rare in other areas. Verbs don’t occur as bases for conversion in the contemporary language. The adjective status of the converted participles is developed to differing degrees. Prefixation with un-, the ability to form a comparative, predicative usage, gradability with sehr ‘very’ as well as the loss of semantic bonds to the corresponding verb count as typical features of adjectives. Not processuality, but quality is designated (Motsch 2004: 304), cf. ein angemessenes Urteil ‘an appropriate, correct verdict’, ein bedeutender Autor ‘an important, eminent author’. Denominal converted adjectives are neither morphologically nor syntactically full representatives of their word class. They do not form comparatives, are not declinable and usually cannot be used attributively (der Film ist klasse, hammer ‘the film is classy, unbelievable’; Pittner and Berman 2006). For this reason, the model is relatively rarely used in the standard language. The conversion of designations for inhabitants ending in -er to indeclinable adjectives is on the other hand almost unrestrictively productive:

2406

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Prager Burg ‘Prague Castle’, Berliner Bär ‘Berlin bear’. For the classification of these forms as derivation, cf. Fuhrhop (2003).

5.3. Verbal conversion Bases for verbal conversion are nouns and adjectives; words from other word classes are rarely, and adverbs never converted (Traum ‘dream’→ träumen ‘to dream’, weit ‘far’ → weiten ‘to widen’, miau ‘meow’ → miauen ‘to meow’). The word-formation meanings of converted verbs correspond for the most part with those of prefix and particle-verb formation. Denominal verbs are ornative (ölen ‘to oil’), agentive (kellnern ‘to wait (tables)’), privative (köpfen ‘to behead’), causative (schroten ‘to grind coarsely’), instrumentative (hämmern ‘to hammer’), locative (wassern ‘to land on water’). Weather verbs such as tagen ‘to become day’, stürmen ‘to be stormy’, donnern ‘to thunder’ represent a special class. Deadjectival verbs are stative (gleichen ‘to be the same as’), ingressive (faulen ‘to rot’), causative (kürzen ‘to shorten’). In a few cases, not the adjectival base form, but rather the comparative serves as input (mildern ‘to alleviate; lit. to make milder’).

5.4. Adverbial conversion Adverbial conversion does not occur in contemporary German. Only a few opaque individual cases such as Morgen ‘morning’ → morgen ‘tomorrow’, Heim ‘home’ → heim ‘home’ are found.

6. Backformation Almost only verbs develop via backformation in German, and specifically from complex nouns. These are nominal compounds with deverbal, suffixed second elements, the suffix of which is deleted: Zwangsernährung ‘force-feeding’ → zwangsernähren ‘to forcefeed’. Backformations differ from derivatives of compounds (schriftstellern ‘to write’ ← Schriftsteller ‘author; lit. writing putter’) and particle verbs with nominal initial elements (teilnehmen ‘to take part’) in that their form paradigm is usually incomplete. Usually, backformed verbs are only used in the infinitive and in the past participle, and the finite forms are completely lacking. If finite forms do develop, they usually remain syntactically inseparable: notlanden ‘to make an emergency landing; lit. to need-land’ − er notlandete ‘he made an emergency landing’. Only occasionally do backformed participles arise from complex nouns: Allgemeinbildung ‘general education’ → allgemeinbildend ‘providing general education’. Backformed nouns do not occur, with the exception of a few individual cases such as hämisch ‘malicious’ → Häme ‘malice’. If one doesn’t count the change in complexity of words or the change in word class as an obligatory feature of the word-formation process, then

134. German

2407

substitutional formations such as Territorialverteidigung ‘territorial defense’ → Territorialverteidiger ‘territorial defender’ could be dealt with here as well (Becker 1993: 192).

7. Reduplication Products of reduplication typically belong to the vocabulary of spoken language; many words of child language are also reduplicating. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and interjections are produced. They can hardly be dealt with systematically. It is necessary to distinguish simple doublings (Pinkepinke ‘money’, plemplem sein ‘to be nuts’), rhyme doubling (Techtelmechtel ‘affair’) as well as ablaut doubling (Tingeltangel pejorative ‘honky-tonk music’).

8. Blending A blend is an interleaving of two lexemes, mostly combined with a shortening of one or both lexemes. Either an initial or a final segment of the source lexemes are thereby combined (Europa ‘Europe’, Asien ‘Asia’ → Eurasien ‘Eurasia’; ja ‘yes’, nein ‘no’ → jein ‘yes and no’) or a segment which is identical in both lexemes is used only once in the new lexeme (Computer ‘computer’, kompetent ‘competent’ → computent ‘computent’; Schmid 2003: 266). Between the source lexemes one can find either paradigmatic semantic relations (Demokratie ‘democracy’, Diktatur ‘dictatorship’ → Demokratur ‘democrature’), a factual connection (Kur ‘course of treatment’, Urlaub ‘holiday’ → Kurlaub ‘holiday cure’) or the amalgamation is facilitated by assonance and homophony (Literatur ‘literature’, Tour ‘tour’ → Literatour ‘literatour’). Blends are often only understandable through contextual or factual knowledge. The discovery of their semantics can cause a pleasant surprise effect. As a result, they are particularly popular in the language of advertising. For a sophisticated corpus-based formal and semantic modeling of blends, cf. Müller and Friedrich (2011).

9. Clipping The creation of short forms is a special kind of word-formation, inasmuch as the output of most kinds does not allow the unequivocal reconstruction of the initial form. As there are no obligatory structural-morphological rules for shortening, it takes place on the basis of principles such as euphony and pronounceability. Above all, phrases and nouns are shortened (größter anzunehmender Unfall ‘maximum credible accident’ → GAU ‘MCA’, Ultrakurzwelle ‘ultra-short wave’ → UKW ‘USW’), but increasingly adjectives are as well, especially in more colloquial registers (asozial ‘asocial’ → aso; Balnat 2011: 121). Shortened verbs rarely occur, they are mostly marked as technical or sociolectal (schiedsrichtern ‘to umpire’ → schiedsen ‘to ump’).

2408

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

The dominating need for shortening is a striving for economical and playful forms of expression. Short forms consist of segments of the full form. Different types of short forms result, depending on the kind and the number of segments used as well as on their position in the full form. Depending on the number of segments, one differentiates between unisegmental (Universität ‘university’ → Uni ‘uni’) and multisegmental short forms (Schiedsrichter ‘umpire’ → Schiri ‘ump’). Multisegmental short forms are generally subdivided in abbreviations (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse ‘general local health insurance company’ → AOK), syllabic short forms (Kriminalpolizei ‘Criminal Investigation Department’ → Kripo ‘CID’) and mixed short forms (Auszubildender ‘trainee’ → Azubi). They can be spelled out (NOK ‘National Olympic Committee’) or read phonetically (TÜV ‘Technical Inspection Agency’, ‘MOT’ in the UK). Short forms are often used in compounds, especially as first elements. When the full form is a phrase, as in TÜV, only the short form of the phrase is a possible first constituent: TÜV-Plakette ‘MOT sticker’, TÜV-geprüft ‘MOT tested’. Short forms also occur as the bases for derivatives and conversions (SPDler ‘member of the SPD’, SMS ‘SMS’ → simsen ‘to text’). Short forms differ from their full form at the time of coinage if not semantically, then at least usually in terms of connotation. Both, accordingly, present clear differences in usage (cf. Michel 2011). Unisegmental forms occur in verbal language and especially in intimate communication. The multisegmental abbreviations and syllabic short forms are rather bound to written formal language and occur, above all, in specialized contexts.

10. Word-creation The assignment of word-creation (also: word invention, word manufacturing) to wordformation is controversial. Admittedly new words come into existence through word manufacture, but their formation does not take place in a rule-based manner on the basis of existing language material, as is the case in word-formation, but rather a content is assigned an arbitrary sequence of sounds, so that it acquires the character of a sign. Word-creation hardly plays a role in the expansion of the class of common nouns, as most formations remain occasional. Only a few, especially onomatopoetic nouns of child language as well as interjections are lexicalized (Wauwau ‘bow-wow’, tatütata ‘nee-naw, nee-naw’, igitt ‘eww’). Recently, manufactured words are gaining increasing importance as company and product names: Elmex (brand of toothpaste), Fa (personal hygiene products), Tchibo (brand of coffee), Cif (scouring agent). So-called pass words or code words, which are either customary lexemes or are constructed from numbers and/or letters, are not to be seen as word-creations. They do not have lexical meaning, but rather serve exclusively as a key for the identification of a person.

134. German

2409

11. References Balnat, Vincent 2011 Kurzwortbildung im Gegenwartsdeutschen. Hildesheim: Olms. Barz, Irmhild 2009 Die Wortbildung. In: Duden. Die Grammatik. Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch, 634− 762. 8th ed. Mannheim/Zürich: Dudenverlag. Becker, Thomas 1992 Compounding in German. Rivista di linguistica 4: 5−36. Becker, Thomas 1993 Morphologische Ersetzungsbildungen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 12: 185−217. Bergmann, Rolf 2005 Autonomie und Isonomie der beiden Wortbildungssysteme im Deutschen. In: Peter O. Müller (ed.), Fremdwortbildung. Theorie und Praxis in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 161−177. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Dokulil, Miloš 1968 Zur Theorie der Wortbildung. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 17: 203−211. Donalies, Elke 2005 Die Wortbildung des Deutschen. Ein Überblick. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Narr. DWb 1 = Wellmann, Hans and Ingeburg Kühnhold 1973 Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. Forschungsstelle Innsbruck. Erster Hauptteil. Das Verb. Mit einer Einführung von Johannes Erben. Düsseldorf: Schwann. DWb 2 = Wellmann, Hans 1975 Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. Forschungsstelle Innsbruck. Zweiter Hauptteil. Das Substantiv. Düsseldorf: Schwann. DWb 3 = Kühnhold, Ingeburg, Oskar Putzer and Hans Wellmann 1978 Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. Forschungsstelle Innsbruck. Dritter Hauptteil. Das Adjektiv. Düsseldorf: Schwann. DWb 4 = Ortner, Lorelies, Elgin Müller-Bollhagen, Hanspeter Ortner, Hans Wellmann, Maria Pümpel-Mader and Hildegard Gärtner 1991 Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. Forschungsstelle Innsbruck. Vierter Hauptteil. Substantivkomposita. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DWb 5 = Pümpel-Mader, Maria, Elsbeth Gassner-Koch and Hans Wellmann 1992 Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. Forschungsstelle Innsbruck. Fünfter Hauptteil. Adjektivkomposita und Partizipialbildungen. Unter Mitarbeit von Lorelies Ortner. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Eichinger, Ludwig M. 2000 Deutsche Wortbildung. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr. Elsen, Hilke 2011 Grundzüge der Morphologie des Deutschen. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. Erben, Johannes 2006 Einführung in die deutsche Wortbildungslehre. 5th ed. Berlin: Schmidt. Fandrych, Christian 2011 Wie geht es eigentlich den “Affixoiden”? Deutsche Sprache 39: 137−153.

2410

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Fandrych, Christian and Maria Thurmair 1994 Ein Interpretationsmodell für Nominalkomposita: Linguistische und didaktische Überlegungen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 31: 34−45. Fleischer, Wolfgang and Irmhild Barz 2012 Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th ed. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. Fuhrhop, Nanna 2003 “Berliner” Luft und “Potsdamer” Bürgermeister: Zur Grammatik der Stadtadjektive. Linguistische Berichte 193: 91−108. Fuhrhop, Nanna 2007 Verbale Komposition: Sind brustschwimmen und radfahren Komposita? In: Maurice Kauffer and René Métrich (eds.), Verbale Wortbildung im Spannungsfeld zwischen Wortsemantik, Syntax und Rechtschreibung, 49−58. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Heringer, Hans Jürgen 2011 Neue Bildungen, der Gemeinschaft vorgeschlagen. In: Hilke Elsen and Sascha Michel (eds.), Wortbildung im Deutschen zwischen Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Perspektiven − Analysen − Anwendungen, 109−132. Stuttgart: ibidem. Michel, Sascha 2011 Das Kurzwort zwischen ‘Langue’ und ‘Parole’ − Analysen zum Postulat der Synonymie zwischen Kurzwort und Vollform. In: Hilke Elsen and Sascha Michel (eds.), Wortbildung im Deutschen zwischen Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Perspektiven − Analysen − Anwendungen, 135−163. Stuttgart: ibidem. Motsch, Wolfgang 2004 Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. 2nd ed. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Müller, Peter O. and Cornelia Friedrich 2011 Kontamination. In: Hilke Elsen and Sascha Michel (eds.), Wortbildung im Deutschen zwischen Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Perspektiven − Analysen − Anwendungen, 73− 107. Stuttgart: ibidem. Ohnheiser, Ingeborg 1987 Wortbildung im Sprachvergleich. Russisch-Deutsch. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Olsen, Susan 1986 Wortbildung im Deutschen. Eine Einführung in die Theorie der Wortstruktur. Stuttgart: Kröner. Pittner, Karin 1998 Radfahren vs. mit dem Rad fahren: Trennbare Verben und parallele syntaktische Strukturen. In: Irmhild Barz and Günther Öhlschläger (eds.), Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon, 103−112. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pittner, Karin and Judith Berman 2006 video ist echt schrott aber single ist hammer. Jugendsprachliche Nomen-Adjektiv-Konversion in der Prädikativposition. Deutsche Sprache 34: 233−250. Schmid, Hans Ulrich 2003 Zölibazis Lustballon: Wortverschmelzungen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Muttersprache 113: 265−278. Seiffert, Anja 2008 Autonomie und Isonomie fremder und indigener Wortbildung am Beispiel ausgewählter numerativer Wortbildungseinheiten. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Wegener, Heide 2003 Entstehung und Funktion der Fugenelemente im Deutschen, oder: Warum wir keine *Autosbahn haben. Linguistische Berichte 196: 425−457.

Irmhild Barz, Leipzig (Germany)

135. English

2411

135. English 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Paradigmatic processes: backformation and local analogy Prosodic morphology: clipping, blending, infixation Conclusion References

Abstract This article gives an overview of English word-formation. It is shown that, in spite of being a language with hardly any inflection, there is a rich inventory of word-formation devices, including compounding, affixation, conversion, and prosodic morphology. The formal and semantic characteristics of these devices are discussed, and examples are given to illustrate the intricate patterns that English complex words present.

1. Introduction English is a language with very little inflectional morphology, but with a large inventory of word-formation devices that have attracted the interest of many researchers for a long time. Hence, there is a rich literature on most aspects of English word-formation, ranging from numerous monographs and research articles on individual phenomena to textbooks such as Adams (1973), Bauer (1983), Carstairs-McCarthy (2002), Plag (2003), Schmid (2011), and handbook-style overviews such as Jespersen (1942), Marchand (1969), Adams (2001), Bauer and Huddleston (2002) and Bauer, Lieber and Plag (2013). In recent years, studies in English word-formation have profited from the availability of electronic corpora, databases and dictionaries such as Cobuild (Sinclair 1987), The British National Corpus (e.g., Davies 2004), The Corpus of Contemporary American English (Davies 2008−), CELEX (Baayen, Piepenbrock and Gulikers 1995), the Oxford English Dictionary or general internet search engines. In particular, these resources have been employed to systematically search for newly created words, which is crucial for any attempt at describing the present-day speakers’ word-formation knowledge. Most of the examples to be given below are taken from such sources.

2. General overview Word-formation in English makes use of composition (also known as compounding), of prefixation, suffixation and (only marginally) infixation, and of non-affixational process-

2412

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

es such as conversion, blending, and clipping. In addition, one can find paradigmatic processes such as backformation and analogy. We will discuss each of these in the subsequent sections. Before we do so, however, we need to clarify some more general theoretical and empirical problems involved in the study of word-formation in English. One such problem is the demarcation of compounding and syntax, which is especially intricate because English has so little inflection that, unlike in other Germanic languages like German, this criterion is not very helpful in defining the boundary between phrases on the one hand, and words on the other. The literature on this problem is vast, but in spite of the many efforts to clarify this particular boundary area, success has been very limited. The problem is particularly evident in discussions of compounding. Unlike in many other languages, none of the criteria (nor all criteria applied together) proposed in the literature for English (e.g., stress assignment, pronominalization, lexicalization, spelling) is able to neatly differentiate between constructions that are clearly syntactic (i.e. phrases) and others that are clearly morphological (i.e. compound words) in nature (see Bauer, Lieber and Plag 2013 for an overview discussion). The search for a clear boundary for the language under discussion is therefore futile, and I will be inclusive rather than exclusive in my discussion of pertinent forms in section 3. Another subproblem of the syntax-morphology divide is the issue of lexicalized multi-word expressions like forget-me-not, jack-in-the-box, verb-particle constructions or phrasal verbs such as get along, put up with, give up or idiomatic expressions like tongue in cheek. In accordance with the literature I consider these lexicalized phrases, which are outside the realm of word-formation. A study of word-formation as against inflection also raises the question of which morphological processes belong to which of the two domains. For English this is generally not an issue apart from one suffix, adverbial -ly. In spite of some good arguments for treating it as inflectional, it will be included in our discussion of adverbial derivation in section 4.4. The problem of productivity and lexicalization looms large in the study of wordformation, since many complex words have meanings or phonological properties that cannot be compositionally derived on the basis of the constituent elements. Such cases of semantic or phonological opacity (as in butterfly or government [gʌvmənt] ‘the body of persons governing’) are numerous in English, especially due the to extensive borrowing of foreign complex words. In this article we will mainly focus on transparent and productive morphologial processes in order to describe the present-day speaker’s wordformation system. The reader is referred to Plag (1999), Bauer (2001) and Plag (2006) for discussions of the role and nature of productivity in English word-formation.

3. Composition 3.1. General remarks Composition or compounding, especially noun-noun compounding, is generally regarded as the most productive word-formation process in English, but studies systematically comparing the productivity of compounding with that of other processes are lacking.

135. English

2413

Compounds can be defined as words that consist of two or more bases. Bases in turn can be defined as elements that can serve as input to further word-formation, i.e. to compounding and suffixation. Bases can be words (as in breath test), bound roots (astrophysics), or even phrases (strawberries-in-July talk). There is, however, the restriction that the right-hand base cannot be a phrase, but must be a bound root or a word. According to this definition, neoclassical formations are also compounds (to be discussed in section 3.3). One can distinguish between determinative and coordinative compounds. In the former the left-hand element is either a modifier of the head (as in opera glass, hothouse, razor-sharp, knee-deep), or serves as an argument of the head (opera singer, club member, sugar-free). Determinative compounds are right-headed, which means that the righthand base determines the grammatical properties of the compound as a whole (e.g., syntactic category, count vs. mass, etc.), as well as the semantic category of the compound. Thus an opera glass is a kind of glass, not a kind of opera. Determinative compounds are binary structures, even if they contain more than two bases. Thus, multiword compounds such as street soccer day or child care center administration staff can be analyzed as consisting of two immediate constituents, one or both of which may be a compound itself: [[street soccer] day], or [[[child care] center] [administration staff ]]. Coordinative compounds, on the other hand, are compounds which consist of elements of the same syntactic category and in which the elements are in an equal semantic relationship, i.e. none of the two concepts denoted is subordinate to the other. These compounds are therefore not clearly right-headed, at least semantically. Coordinative compounds may be appositional, additive or compromise (Bauer 2008). Appositional compounds refer to single entities that represent the intersection of two sets. A nerdgenius is both a nerd and a genius, a scholar-activist is both a scholar and an activist. Additive compounds refer to entities that represent the sum of two sets, as in many territory names (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Austria-Hungary). Adjectival additive compounds combine two properties (deaf-mute refers to a state of being both deaf and mute). Compromise compounds refer to intermediate or blended properties, as in blue-green, southwest. Coordinative compounds may contain more than two elements (as in AOL-Time Warner, artist-singer-songwriter), in which case it is hard to argue for hierarchically structured binary structures, instead of flat ternary structures. An important issue in the discussion of English compounds is their stress behavior. While traditional accounts hold that two-member compounds are stressed on the first element (ópera singer, e.g., Bloomfield 1935: 180, 228), it is often acknowledged (e.g., even by Chomsky and Halle 1968: 15–18, the inventors of the so-called “compound (stress) rule”) that compounds can also be right-stressed (e.g., home phóne). In natural speech, about one third of the noun-noun compounds are in fact right-stressed (cf. Sproat 1994; Plag 2010; Bell and Plag 2012), which shows that stress variability is not a marginal phenomenon. Which of the two constituents will be more prominent in a given compound is an intricate question. First, there is variability across and within speakers (Kunter 2011, ch. 8), second, there is variability across different varieties of English (cf. Giegerich 2004: 15–16), and, third, there is variability across contexts when contrastive stress comes into play. Abstracting away from these three sources of variability, a number of factors have been successfully shown to determine compound stress assignment in noun-noun compounds, namely semantics, lexicalization, constituent family and informativity (cf. Plag et al. 2008; Arndt-Lappe 2011; Bell and Plag 2012). These factors work

2414

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

in the following way: compounds that express certain semantic relations (e.g., ‘N2 is located at N1’, ‘N2 is made of N1’, coordinative compounds) tend to prefer a certain stress pattern, more lexicalized compounds tend to be left-stressed, compounds that share a left or right member tend to be stressed in the same way, and less informative second constituents tend not to be stressed. Compounds with more than two constituents seem to follow the same principles as compounds with only two constituents (Kösling and Plag 2009; Giegerich 2009), contra theoretical claims that branching direction is the decisive influence (cf. Liberman and Prince 1977). Let us now turn to the kinds of combinations we find in English compounds. Table 135.1 gives an overview, grouped by the four major syntactic categories nouns, adjectives, verbs and prepositions. Tab. 135.1: Compound types by syntactic category noun noun adjective verb preposition

house speaker loudspeaker spoilsport afterthought

adjective ankle-deep light-green go-slow incoming

verb babysit blackmail stir-fry downgrade

preposition year-in tuned-in push-up into

Perhaps surprisingly, all combinations are attested. However, as will become clear as we go along, not all of these combinations are productive, and not all of the combinations arose through a process in which a speaker combined two bases to form a new word exhibiting the properties of compounds as described above. Following Bauer, Lieber and Plag (2013) I will use the term canonical compound for compounds productively formed by combining two or more bases, and non-canonical compound for forms that arose in a different way. For example, complex prepositions like into, onto, throughout, whereafter, therefore, notwithstanding, hereby arose through the univerbation of frequently adjacent forms. Other non-canonical compounds seem to be the product of a process of inversion, as in the case of preposition-verb or preposition-adjective compounds like download, outsource and inbuilt, upcoming (Berg 1998). There are also non-canonical compounds resulting from conversion and stress shift (as in, for example, break dówn → bréakdown, push úp → púsh-up), or from backformation. Backformation is especially prevalent with compound verbs that are backderived from synthetic compounds, as evidenced in babysit ← babysitter, chainsmoke ← chain-smoker.

3.2. Nominal composition The least productive of the four patterns in Table 135.1 is the combination of verb and noun. In this pattern the noun frequently functions as the object of the verb in first position (e.g., spoilsport, pickpocket, cut-throat). Compounds of this type are semantically exocentric. There are, however, also endocentric verb-noun compounds in which the noun is not the object of the verb, as in cry-baby, think-tank. Nominal compounds with prepositions or adjectives as first elements are rather frequent (afterbirth, backseat, downside, upland, hothouse, whitewater, clean-living).

135. English

2415

The largest group consists of noun-noun compounds, which are semantically extremely diverse, ranging from determinative compounds through argument-head compounds to various types of coordinative compounds. In general, noun-noun compounds are ambiguous and any compound may in principle receive different interpretations according to context. This may even affect lexicalized compounds, where the institutionalized meaning may be overridden by a contextual interpretation. Thus, given the right situation, a speaker may refer to a fly sitting on the butter as a butterfly. Out of context, compounds tend to be interpreted in such a way that a reasonable or typical relation between the two constituents is established. For compounds with a deverbal head, this may often lead to an argumental interpretation of the first element, as in car sale ‘the selling of cars’, but not necessarily so, as evidenced in garage sale ‘selling from one’s garage’.

3.3. Adjectival composition Adjectival compounds can be productively formed with nouns or other adjectives as non-heads. The interpretation of adjectival compounds follows principles similar to those of nominal compounds. There are determinative, argumental and coordinative adjectival compounds (e.g., dog-lean, structure-dependent, brown-grey, respectively). A common type of interpretation of determinative adjectival compounds involves a comparison (dog-lean ‘lean as a dog’, blood-red ‘red like blood’). Argumental adjectival compounds often have a deverbal head, as in (object-oriented) confidence-inspiring or (subject-oriented) state-controlled.

3.4. Verbal composition Most compounds that are verbs seem to be non-canonical, i.e. derived by processes other than the combination of two bases (Erdmann 1999). We find conversions from nominal or adjectival compounds (breath test, carbon-copy, cold-shoulder, head-shake), inverted phrasal constructions (e.g., upgrade ← grade up), backformations from nominal or adjectival compounds (de-nominal: crash-land ← crash-landing, deadjectival: tailor-make ← tailor-made). There are, however, also canonical verbal compounds, which can be determinative (window-shop) or coordinative (e.g., blow-dry, stir-fry, trickle-irrigate). Perhaps as a consequence of the wide variety of derivational histories just outlined, nouns, adjectives, verbs and prepositions can all occur as first elements.

3.5. Neoclassical composition Neoclassical formations are (mostly nominal) compounds in which bases of Latin or Greek origin are combined to form new combinations that are not attested in the original languages. The list of forms that can be argued to belong to the class of neoclassical forms is long, and it is not entirely clear which elements should belong to this class (cf. Bauer 1998; Baeskow 2004 for discussion). Some examples are astro- ‘space’, bio- ‘life’, bib-

2416

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

lio- ‘book’, electro- ‘electricity’, -cracy ‘rule’, -graphy ‘write’, -itis ‘inflammation, disease’, -logy ‘science of’. Most neoclassical bases do not occur as a free form, which is the reason that they are called “combining forms”. Some bases (like morph-/-morph and phil-/-phile), can occur both in initial and final position, while most forms occur either initially or finally. Combining forms can attach to other bound forms (glaciology, scientology) or to words (hydro-electric, lazyitis, morpho-syntax). Neoclassical elements can show different segmental and prosodic structures depending on the kinds of element that combine. Initial combining forms that take a word as second element regularly have their main stress on the right constituent (e.g., astrophýsics), while numerous final combining forms impose antepenultimate stress on the compound (e.g., astrólogy), accompanied by a different vowel quality (e.g., [oʊ] in astrophysics vs. [ɒ] astrólogy). Combining forms such as -graphy, -cracy, and -logy thus behave phonologically like certain stress-influencing suffixes (such as -ity, see section 4). Characteristically, we find a vowel at the boundary between the two elements. This vowel is orthographically represented mostly as either or . The nature and morphological status of this vowel are not quite clear. Thus, there are compounds where the vowel is independent, as it occurs with initial elements that have no stem allomorph with that vowel, e.g., film-o-graphy or steroid-o-genesis. In other formations the vowel is part of the first element and cannot be omitted (e.g., geo-physics/*ge-physics, telephone/*tel-phone). Finally, there are cases with phonologically governed alternations. For instance, consonant-final variants of initial combining forms such as gastr- ‘stomach’ or morph- ‘form’ combine with vowel-initial final combining forms (such as -itis, -osis) without the addition of a thematic vowel, whereas the combination with a consonantinitial final combining form leads to the occurrence of a vowel (gastr-o-graphy, morpho-metry). This alternation is restricted to combining forms, since vowel-final non-combining forms as initial elements preserve their final vowel (cf. potato-itis, big companyitis).

4. Derivation Partly due to the history of the language with contact playing a major role, we find a large inventory of native and non-native prefixes and suffixes. English also possesses infixation, but due to its nature as prosodic morphology the reader is referred to section 7 for the discussion of infixation. Suffixes generally determine the syntactic category of the derived word, while the vast majority of prefixes do not. The discussion given below of the numerous suffixes is organized according to the syntactic category of the derivatives. As shown in Plag (2003), most suffixes attach to more than one base category, with affix-particular phonological, morphological, semantic and syntactic restrictions determining the combination of affixes and bases. Derivation is largely constrained to the three major syntactic categories noun, adjective and verb. These three categories can quite freely derive new words from each other. The formation of adverbs is highly constrained: at best, only two suffixes exist that derive adverbs and these are very selective concerning the kinds of base they can attach to (see the discussion in section 4.4).

135. English

2417

In the literature one can often find a distinction between native and non-native affixes, with the two classes being distinguishable through their combinatorial properties and phonological behavior. Recent studies have shown, however, that such a distinction is gradient at best, if not totally misguided (cf. Plag 1999; Plag and Baayen 2009; Zirkel 2010; Bauer, Lieber and Plag 2013). Unlike prefixes, many suffixes trigger stem allomorphy, resyllabification or stress shift. For example, verbal derivatives in -ize involve the deletion of base-final segments under specific circumstances (cf. summary → summarize, feminine → feminize, see Plag 1999), and nominal derivatives in -ity are all stressed on the antepenultimate syllable, inducing resyllabification when possible, and imposing a stress shift when necessary to achieve antepenultimate stress (prodúctive → productívity). In spite of attempts to systematize the different patterns of morpho-phonological alternations found in English derivation, there is good empirical evidence that each morphological category comes with its own very particular morpho-phonology (cf. Plag 1999; Raffelsiefen 1999; Lappe 2007).

4.1. Nominal derivation Semantically, one can distinguish between several large groups of suffixes, i.e. person noun-forming suffixes, event nominalizations (including those denoting results, states, products and means), and nominalizations denoting qualities, collectives and other abstract noun categories. Quite often, the same suffix can cover a wide range of meanings, even transgressing the major groups just outlined.

4.1.1. Event nominalizations In this section we discuss nominalizations with the suffixes -ing, -ion, -ment, -al, -ure, -ance/-ence and -ancy/-ency. All non-auxiliary verbs have at least a nominalization in -ing, and many verbs have one or more additional nominalizations. Apart from -ing, the only other suffix that is fully productive in its domain is -ion (with its variants -ation, -cation, -ion, -ition, -tion, -ution), which obligatorily attaches to the verbal suffixes -ize, -ate and -ify. The other suffixes mentioned show only few new formations (e.g., revisal, fluctuance), with -ment yielding the highest number of neologisms among them (e.g., ceasement, financement). All event nominalizations can give rise to different readings, with the event reading being perhaps the most prevalent. Other readings, also with suffixes whose function is primarily a different one, include results (acceptance, compression), products (drawing, sculpture), instruments (trimming, refreshment), locations (enclosure, residence), agents (administration, government), measure terms (abundance), paths (ascendence, continuation), patients (payment, substitution), and states (annoyance, boredom). Conversion of verbs into nouns show similar ranges of meanings, but these will be discussed in section 5. While -ing and -al seem to attach only to verbs, the other suffixes are more versatile. We find -ure on verbs (erasure), nouns (architecture) and bound bases (juncture), -ment

2418

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

on verbs (assessment), nouns (illusionment), adjectives (scarcement) and bound bases (segment). With the suffixes -ance/-ence and -ancy/-ency there is no clear evidence whether the base of the nominal is a verb in -ate or the corresponding adjective in -ant (cf., for example, hesitate ↔ hesitant ↔ hesitancy). Phonologically, -ion, -al, and -ure are quite interesting. The derivatives with the suffix -ion are stressed on the penult with pertinent stress shifts if necessary, with the consequence that its productive allomorph -(c)átion is often referred to as auto-stressed (personalizátion). Deverbal nominal -al only attaches to iambic bases (deníal, refúsal), and -ure can trigger palatalization and base allomorphies (disclo[z]e → disclo[ʒ]ure, join → juncture).

4.1.2. Person nouns This section deals with derived nouns denoting agents, patients, themes, instruments, inhabitants, locations, and gendered forms. The pertinent suffixes are -er, -or, -ee, -ant/ -ent, -ist, -an, -eer, -ster, -meister, -arian, -ite, -ese, -ess, -ette, and -trix. Most of the suffixes attach to many kinds of bases, including phrases. Consider, for example, the probably most versatile suffix -er, which attaches to verbs (attacker), nouns (islander), proper nouns (Montrealer), compounds (freestyler), and phrases (no-hoper). Some of the suffixes are polysemous and can express more than one of the abovementioned meanings, and many of the above-mentioned meanings can be expressed by more than one of suffixes. For example, agent can be encoded by -er (reader), -or (investor), -ee (escapee), -ant/-ent (student), -ist (journalist), -an (guardian), and (adding an evaluative component) also by -eer (summiteer), -ster (fraudster), -meister (ragemeister), -arian (fruitarian). Viewed from the formal side, the suffix -er can express, for example, agent (shrugger), patient (shooter), experiencer (smeller), instrument (whaler), inhabitant (Londoner), location (diner), and measure (fiver).

4.1.3. Quality nouns, collectives and other abstracts There are many suffixes that create various kinds of abstract and collective nouns, such as -ness (remoteness), -ity (curiosity), -dom (heathendom), -ship (courtship), -hood (manhood), -ery (slavery), -ana (Victoriana), -age (voltage) and -ism (careerism). The suffixes -ness and -ity prefer adjectival bases (but are not restricted to those), and the respective derivatives denote the quality or state denoted by the base adjective (blueness ‘the qualtiy or state of being blue’, profunditiy ‘the quality or state of being profound’). The other suffixes mentioned in the previous paragraph are mostly (but not exclusively) found with nominal bases. The suffixes -dom, -ship, -hood express a similar meaning, which, due to the composition with mainly nominal bases, can be paraphrased as ‘the state or condition of being X’ (stakeholderdom, advisorship, buddyhood). Meaning extensions to territory, collective or other meanings are not infrequent (kingdom, membership, brotherhood), neither are triplets or doublets with the same base, for example studenthood, studentdom, studentship, and with no apparent difference in meaning. The suffixes -ery, -age, and -ana primarily derive collective nouns or locations (fernery, nunnery, cuttage, leakage, Africana, Nixoniana). Nouns denoting fields of study or

135. English

2419

forms of doctrine are derived by -ism. Again, suffix polysemy is the rule, and meaning extensions are common (e.g., to ‘behavior’ with -ery, as in clownery).

4.1.4. Diminutives English also has a number of productive suffixes that can be categorized as diminutive, as they usually express small size and a specific attitude of the speaker towards a referent (Schneider 2003). The suffixes include -ie (thingy, Josie, howdy), -ette (kitchenette, sleeperette), -let (piglet, baylet, flamelet, trendlet), -o (kiddo), -s (Babs), -er (rugger), and -poo (huggypoo). The majority of bases and derivatives are nominal, but other categories can be found (e.g., howdy). Of these, -ie (with its spelling variants and ) is the most productive one. Due to its nature as a prosodic morphological category it will be discussed (together with -o) in section 7. The others attach primarily, if not exclusively, to nouns, with moderate productivity.

4.2. Adjectival derivation There are at least 19 productive adjectival suffixes in English (-able, -al, -ant, -ary, -ed, -esque, -ful, -an, -ible, -ic, -ical, -ine, -ing, -ish, -ive, -ly, -ory, -ous, -some, -y), plus the formation of verbal present and past participles, which are readily used as adjectives. Most adjectival suffixes are non-native, and it is with this set that we find intriguing patterns of morphophonological alternations, including stress shifts as well as stem and suffix allomorphy. Let us briefly examine one example, derivatives in -able. Apart from some exceptional lexicalized forms (such as ádmirable, préferable), derivatives with monosyllabic and disyllabic bases do not show stress shifts (e.g., áskable, abúsable, chállengeable). Derivatives with longer base words behave in a peculiar fashion, however. They show no stress shift if their antepenult is light (e.g., jét.ti.so.na.ble, mó.ni.to.ra.ble), but show optionally stress shift to the antepenult if it is heavy (e.g., al.lo.cá.ta.ble, a.ro.ma.tí.za.ble, á.na.ly.za.ble/a.na.lý.za.ble, cér.ti.fy.a.ble/cer.ti.fý.a.ble). Quite often semantically empty formatives are involved in adjectival suffixation, such as in Plato-n-ic, in aroma-t-ic or in baron-i-an (vs. republican), or one finds particular stem allomorphs (as in assume → assumpt-ive, induce → induct-ive). Semantically, it is useful to distinguish between qualitative and relational adjectives. Relational adjectives are usually denominal, and they relate the noun which is modified by the adjective to the base word of the derived adjective. Thus an algebraic mind is ‘a mind having to do with algebra’. Qualitative adjectives, in contrast, encode more specific meanings and show different syntactic properties (e.g., gradability, modification by very, predicative use). Of the suffixes mentioned, -al, -ary, -ic are relational in nature, although their dervatives may also be coerced into qualitative readings. For example, grammatical has a relational sense ‘having to do with grammar’ (as in she is a grammatical genius), and a qualitative sense ‘conforming to the rules of grammar’ (as in this is a grammatical sentence).

2420

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

The qualitative adjectival meanings include potentiality (-able), ornative (-ed, as in leather-soled), similative (as in hipsterish, Kafkaesque, Barbie-like), possessive (‘have X’, respectful), eventive (avoidant, explorative, explanatory). Meaning extensions for these suffixes are common and depend on the kind of base a particular suffix attaches to and the context the form occurs in. For example, existing attestations in COCA of brothy suggest an affix interpreted as ‘containing X’ (“a hot, brothy bowl of vegetarian pho”), ‘tasting like X’ (“a well-seasoned filling with brothy undertones”), or ‘smelling like X’ (“… letting her smell the brothy steam”).

4.3. Verbal derivation Apart from conversion (see section 5) there are three productive suffixes that can derive verbs, mainly from nouns and adjectives. These are -ize, -ify, and -ate. The two suffixes -ize and -ify show roughly the same range of meanings: locative (hospitalize, tubify), ornative (patinize, youthify), causative (randomize, aridify), resultative (peasantize, trustify), inchoative (aerosolize, mucify), performative (anthropologize), and similative (powellize). Their distribution is governed by prosodic restrictions, with -ize attaching to polysyllabic bases, and -ify (productively) to monosyllables and to disyllables ending in /ɪ/. The suffix -ate is more restricted, productively deriving ornative and resultative verbs, mainly in the domain of the sciences (mercurate, iodinate).

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs are formed with the help of two suffixes, -ly (expectedly, internationally) and -wise. The status of deadjectival, adverbial-forming -ly as derivational is disputed (see, for example, Payne, Huddleston and Pullum 2010 and Giegerich 2012 for discussion) since it displays characteristics of inflection that suggest that -ly adverbs are in fact positional variants of adjectives. The suffix -wise derives two kinds of adverbs from nouns. Manner and dimension adverbs (such as lengthwise, sarong-wise) can be paraphrased as ‘in the manner of X, like X, along the dimension of X’, while the meaning of the more productive viewpoint adverbs (such as food-wise, language-wise) can be rendered as ‘with respect to, concerning X’.

4.5. Prefixation There is an abundance of prefixes in English, which modify their bases in various ways. We find quantificational (bi-, demi-, di-, hyper-, hypo-, mega-, micro-, mini-, mono-, poly-, semi-, super-, tri-, ultra-, uni-), negative (a-, anti-, counter-, de-, dis-, in-, mis-, non-, un-), and spatial/temporal prefixes (ante-, circum-, cross-, ex-, extra-, inter-, intra-, meta-, mid-, out-, pan-, post-, pre-, retro-, sub-, supra-, trans-), often with pertinent meaning extensions, as well as many prefixes with various other meanings (arch- ‘princi-

135. English

2421

pal’, auto- ‘self’, pseudo- ‘false’, re- ‘again’, step- ‘taken over from a previous relationship’, vice- ‘acting in place of’). As mentioned above, most prefixes attach to many different kinds of base and do not determine the syntactic category of their bases. Exceptions to this generalization are the unproductive verbal prefixes en- (e.g., enshrine) and be- (e.g., befriend).

5. Conversion Conversion, the change from one syntactic category to another with no change in form, is a highly productive process in English word-formation. Its theoretical status as lexical or syntactic is debated, as is the treatment of specific kinds of conversion as zerosuffixation, multifunctionality or underspecification. Furthermore, there is the problem of directionality, i.e. of determining which of a given pair of forms is the base and which is the derivative. I will be agnostic as to these theoretical and methodological issues and describe observable patterns of lexical relatedness that are considered as word-formation by most analysts.

5.1. Nominal conversion Conversion into nouns is especially frequent with verbal bases (cry), but can also be based on adjectives (intellectual, subconscious, sweet), adverbs (forward), interjections (oh), conjunctions (buts, ands), and phrases (no-go). Semantically, the outcome of deverbal conversion into noun is largely determined by the semantics of the base, and can, preferably but not exclusively, denote an instance (call, guess, jump), a location (dump), or a person (cook, cheat, spy).

5.2. Adjectival conversion The analysis of conversion into adjectives is quite problematic as the criteria for determining what an adjective is in English are not uncontroversial. Given that nouns can freely occur in attributive position with other nouns, it is very hard to find examples of nouns that have acquired adjective-like properties that go beyond their occurrence as nominal modifiers, such as modification with very, or comparative formation. Clear cases are fun and key, as in this is a very fun read or ethnicity is a very key factor (both examples from COCA). Many potential examples are of questionable status (e.g., abstract, moderate, perfect as presumably converted from verbs).

5.3. Verbal conversion The most productive conversion process is conversion into verbs, with practically no restriction concerning the kinds of bases. We find, for example, nouns (e.g., bottle, file,

2422

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

skin, blockhouse, bootstrap), adjectives (cruel, young), phrases (blind-side, cold-call), interjections (oh-oh) and conjunctions (if). Semantically, converted verbs are indeterminate, with the only restriction being that the derivative denotes an event, state or process that has to do with the denotation of the base.

6. Paradigmatic processes: backformation and local analogy Many morphological formations in English can be easily analyzed as the concatenation of morphemes and are therefore often used as examples for a morpheme-based, syntagmatic view of morphology. However, there are also numerous complex words in English that do not lend themselves to such an approach and cannot be straightforwardly described without recourse to paradigmatic relationships between words in the mental lexicon. The perhaps most prominent mechanism in this respect is backformation, which is usually defined as the deletion of a suffix or prefix in analogy to pairs of base and derivative that feature the affix in question. A textbook example is edit ← editor on the basis of many such pairs of words (credit/creditor, exhibit/exhibitor), but other examples can be easily found (to transcript ← transcription, self-destruct ← self-destruction). Backformation is sometimes described as the deletion of a suffix, but crucially such a deletion necessarily involves analogical pairings of forms with and without the suffix, and is therefore paradigmatic in nature. As shown in Plag (1999: 206–210), many derivatives in -ate are backformations, either from nouns in -or, or, more commonly, from nouns in -ation (e.g., escalate, formate, cavitate). As already mentioned above, verbal compounds are in their majority backformations (denominal: houseclean ← house-cleaning, deadjectival: tailor-make ← tailor-made). Another source of new lexemes is the coinage of individual words on the basis of an analogy to single existing complex words or sets of existing words, as in house husband ‘a husband responsible for the household work’, on the basis of housewife, or as in beefburger, cheeseburger, shrimpburger on the basis of (misanalyzed) hamburger. Consider also seaquake ‘an earthquake originating under the sea’ or hangunder ‘the funny feeling you get when you wake up after a night of not drinking and you’re not hungover like usual’.

7. Prosodic morphology: clipping, blending, infixation The term prosodic morphology refers to those morphological processes where the relevant category is expressed predominantly or exclusively through prosodic means, i.e. by manipulating the prosodic make-up of the base. In some cases this may involve an additional affix (as in -y and -o formations or expletive infixation). We will distinguish three major categories: clipping (involving one base and the deletion of phonological material), blending (involving two or more bases) and infixation (the insertion of a morpheme into a base at a prosodically determined position). The first two categories have often been described as being highly irregular, but recent studies (e.g., Bat-El

135. English

2423

2006; Lappe 2007) have shown that this characterization is false, once an output-oriented approach is taken.

7.1. Clipping This category comprises mainly the clipping of common nouns (e.g., lab ← laboratory, pro ← professional, celeb ← celebrity), -y-suffixed common nouns (daffy ← daffodil, veggie ← vegetable), -o-suffixed common nouns (evo ← evening, delo ← delegate), clipped proper nouns (Pat ← Patricia, Kye ← Hezekiah), -y-hypocoristics (Pety ← Peter, Trishy ← Patricia). Less common are formations in -s (Gabs ← Gabrielle) or -a (Gazza ← Gascoigne). Semantically, clipped forms are often in-group markers and express familiarity with the concept or referent of the base. Sometimes a clipping may find its way into the speech community at large, in which case the form loses its in-group flavor, as can be observed for ad (← advertisement). Hypocoristics such as sweety or Frannie express not only familiarity, but also a (usually positive) attitude towards the person or thing referred to. There are many similarities between the different processes, but as shown in Lappe (2007), each of them comes with its own set of prosodic and segmental restrictions that regulate the phonological structure of the derivative and the relationship between derivative and base. For illustration, let us take a look at the differences between clipped proper nouns and clipped common nouns. Clipped proper nouns systematically anchor to the first or to the main-stressed syllable (cf. Patricia → Pat ~ Trish, Octavia → Oc ~ Tave), while clipped common nouns can only anchor to the first syllable (cf. fraternity → frat/ *tern, mechanic → mech/*chan). Proper noun clippings do not preserve certain consonant clusters that are preserved in common noun clippings (e.g., /kt/ or /pt/). Finally, dental fricatives may be optionally substituted in proper noun clippings (cf. Bartholomew → Bart), but not in common noun clippings, which always preserve the dental fricative (cf. catheder → cath/*cat).

7.2. Blending Blends can be analyzed as compounds with at least one constituent having lost some of its phonological material. Semantically, they can be determinative or coordinative, and stress-wise they behave like a single word, normally adopting the stress pattern of one of the two source words. There are two basic patterns observable. In the first, shown in (1a), the first part of the left base word and the last part of the right base word form the blend. This type is most often discussed in the literature and seems much more frequent than the second type, given in (1b), where the respective first parts of the two bases are combined. (1)

a. AB + CD → AD (breakfast + lunch → brunch) b. AB + CD → AC (modulator + demodulator → modem)

2424

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

In terms of syntactic category, many different combinations are possible, e.g., noun + noun (beer + nirvana → beervana), adjective + noun (British + sitcom → Britcom), adjective + adjective (rural + urban → rurban), verb + verb (correct + rectify → correctify). The formal relationship between the bases and the blend is regulated by a compromise of two competing forces. One is the deletion of material to form a single word, the other the necessity to preserve as much material as possible to relate the blend to its bases. Let us look at some restrictions for illustration. The vast majority of blends have as many syllables as one of the bases, usually the second base (as in boatel, brunch, guesstimate). Counterexamples exist (e.g., correctify), but they often involve a considerable overlap of phonological or orthographic material, which facilitates the recoverability of both base words. If there is no overlap between the two bases because they do not share the same segments the location of the cut-off point between the two bases is largely determined by syllable structure. For example, with monosyllabic blends there is a strong tendency to combine the onset of the first word with rhyme of the second (as in spoon + fork → sp#ork, see also br#unch). Polysyllabic blends combine syllable constituents or whole syllables in various ways (as shown in Table 135.2, taken from Plag 2003: 124), and quite often the segmental overlap allows for more than one analysis (as exemplified by boatel). Tab. 135.2: Combinations of syllabic constituents in polysyllabic blends A

D

A + D, examples

onset

penultimate rime and ultimate syllable

b + oatel ch + unnel

onset and nucleus

ultimate syllable

boa + tel

onset and nucleus

coda and ultimate syllable

Spa + nglish

onset

syllables

g + estimate

syllable

ultimate rime

boat + el

syllable

syllables

com + pander guess + timate stag + flation

7.3. Infixation In English, there is the possibility of inserting expletives in the middle of words to create new words expressing the strongly negative attitude of the speaker (e.g., kanga-bloodyroo, abso-blooming-lutely). The insertion of the expletive is governed by a prosodic constraint: it must be inserted between two feet. Hence, it is not allowed to interrupt a foot, as shown, for example, by *(ám-EXPLETIVE-per)(sànd) vs. (ámper)-EXPLETIVE(sànd) (parentheses are used to indicate foot boundaries). Nor may it appear between a foot and an unstressed syllable not belonging to a foot, as shown in *ba-EXPLETIVE(nána) vs. (bàn)-EXPLETIVE-(dánna) (see Hammond 1999: 161–164 for more detailed discussion).

135. English

2425

8. Conclusion The present overview of English word-formation has shown that, although inflectionally impoverished, this language’s word-formation resources are plentitful and lead to patterns of complex words that are quite intricate in form and meaning. These patterns are also a good testing ground for morphological theories, with English word-formation data presenting interesting challenges for concepts such as the morpheme, lexical integrity, lexical strata, or the lexicon-syntax divide.

9. References Adams, Valerie 1973 An Introduction to English Word-Formation. London: Longman. Adams, Valerie 2001 Complex Words in English. Harlow: Longman. Arndt-Lappe, Sabine 2011 Towards an exemplar-based model of stress in English noun-noun compounds. Journal of Linguistics 47(11): 549–585. Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock and Leon Gulikers 1995 The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania. Baeskow, Heike 2004 Lexical Properties of Selected Non-Native Morphemes of English. Tübingen: Narr. Bat-El, Outi 2006 Blends. In: Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 66–70. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bauer, Laurie 1983 English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie 1998 Is there a class of neoclassical compounds, and if so is it productive? Linguistics 36(3): 403–422. Bauer, Laurie 2001 Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie 2008 Dvandva. Word Structure 1: 1–20. Bauer, Laurie and Rodney Huddleston 2002 Lexical word formation. In: Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 621–722. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber and Ingo Plag 2013 A Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bell, Melanie and Ingo Plag 2012 Informativeness is a determinant of compound stress in English. Journal of Linguistics 48: 485–520. Berg, Thomas 1998 The (in)compatibility of morpheme orders and lexical categories and its historical implications. English Language and Linguistics 2: 245–262. Bloomfield, Leonard 1935 Language. London: Allen & Unwin.

2426

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew 2002 An Introduction to English Morphology. Words and their Structure. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle 1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Davies, Mark 2004 BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ [last access 20 Oct 2015]. Davies, Mark 2008− The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ [last access 20 Oct 2015]. Erdmann, Peter 1999 Compound verbs in English: Are they pseudo? In: Guy A. J. Tops, Betty Devriendt and Steven Geukens (eds.), Thinking English Grammar. To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus, 239–252. Leuven: Peeters. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2004 Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8: 1–24. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2009 The compound stress myth. Word Structure 2: 1–17. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2012 The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English. English Language and Linguistics 16(3): 341–359. Hammond, Michael 1999 The Phonology of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kösling, Kristina and Ingo Plag 2009 Does branching direction determine prominence assignment? An empirical investigation of triconstituent compounds in English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5: 201–239. Kunter, Gero 2011 Compound Stress in English. The Phonetics and Phonology of Prosodic Prominence. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Jespersen, Otto 1942 A Modern English Grammar. On Historical Principles. Part VI Morphology. London: Allen & Unwin. Lappe, Sabine 2007 English Prosodic Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer. Liberman, Marc and Alan Prince 1977 On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336. Marchand, Hans 1969 The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. 2nd ed. München: Beck. Payne, John, Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum 2010 The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs. Word Structure 3: 31–81. Plag, Ingo 1999 Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Plag, Ingo 2003 Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plag, Ingo 2004 Syntactic category information and the semantics of derivational morphological rules. Folia Linguistica 38: 193–225.

136. Dutch

2427

Plag, Ingo 2006 Productivity. In: Baas Aarts and April McMahon (eds.), Handbook of English Linguistics, 537–556. Oxford: Blackwell. Plag, Ingo 2010 Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29(2): 243–282. Plag, Ingo, Gero Kunter, Sabine Lappe and Maria Braun 2008 The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language 84(4): 760–794. Plag, Ingo and Harald Baayen 2009 Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language 85: 109–152. Raffelsiefen, Renate 1999 Phonological constraints on English word formation. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1998, 225–288. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Schmid, Hans-Jörg 2011 English Morphology and Word-formation. An Introduction. Berlin: Schmidt. Schneider, Klaus P. 2003 Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Sinclair, John M. (ed.) 1987 Looking up. An Account of the Cobuild Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins. Sproat, Richard 1994 English noun-phrase accent prediction for text-to-speech. Computer Speech and Language 8: 79–94. Zirkel, Linda 2010 Prefix combinations in English: Structural and processing factors. Morphology 20: 239– 266.

Ingo Plag, Düsseldorf (Germany)

136. Dutch 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Borrowed word-formation and neoclassical word-formation Blending and clipping References

Abstract The two main processes of word-formation in Dutch are compounding and derivation. Nominal and adjectival compounding are productive processes, unlike verbal compounding. Phrasal expressions may form constituents of compounds. Derivation is performed by prefixation (in most cases category-neutral), or by suffixation. Affixes have been

2428

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

borrowed on a large scale. Conversion of nouns to verbs is productive. Complex words may also arise through the processes of univerbation and grammaticalization. Various forms of word manufacturing play a role in modern Dutch word-formation as well.

1. Introduction The study of the morphology of Dutch started with the work on the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, a scientific dictionary of Dutch (1864–1998) modeled after the Deutsches Wörterbuch of the Grimm brothers, and now on-line on the website of the Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie (www.inl.nl). Morphological research on Dutch was boosted through the rise and influence of structuralism in which paradigmatic relations between words were of high importance. A paradigm example of this approach to word-formation is Schultink’s dissertation on the morphological valence of the simplex adjective in Dutch (Schultink 1962). The paradigmatic approach to the word-formation of Dutch can also be found in van Marle (1985). A new impetus to morphological research was provided by generative grammar, in particular since the appearance of Mark Aronoff’s dissertation (Aronoff 1976) which inspired Booij’s dissertation on Dutch word-formation (Booij 1977), in which Dutch word-formation is analyzed in terms of word-formation rules. The issue of whether word-formation is a matter of rules, or rather to be seen as a form of analogy is discussed in Hüning (1999). Another point of debate in the study of Dutch word-formation is how to deal with the differences in productivity between various word-formation processes (van Santen 1992). The Dutch linguist Harald Baayen developed a sophisticated theory of productivity, partially on the basis of Dutch data. A summary of his approach and references to his earlier work can be found in Baayen (2009). A survey of the history of morphological research on Dutch with many references is given by Schultink (2000). A handbook on Dutch word-formation written in Dutch is de Haas and Trommelen (1993). A concise handbook in English on the morphology of Dutch (including inflection) is Booij (2002), from which the tables and many examples in this article are taken. A bibliographical survey of research on the morphology of Dutch up to 1998 is given in Booij (1999). A Dutch textbook on morphology is Booij and van Santen (1998). Since in Dutch the morphological structure of words co-determines the way in which their constituents are realized phonetically, a description of Dutch word-formation is not complete without a proper account of the interaction between morphology and phonology. For instance, there is a tendency for compounds to receive main stress on the first constituent, and complex words ending in a native suffix carry their main stress on the same syllable as the base word, as these suffixes are stress-neutral. The reader is referred to Booij (1995) for an overview of the relevant facts.

2. General overview The major word-formation processes in Dutch are compounding and derivation. Derivation is performed by prefixation and suffixation. In addition, Dutch has derived words that reflect the Indo-Germanic process of ablaut. That is, words may have been derived

136. Dutch

2429

by vowel alternation, sometimes in combination with the addition of an affix. However, vowel alternation lost its productivity as a means of derivation long ago. (1)

aan-neem bind sluit sleut-el

‘to suppose’ ‘to bind’ ‘to close’ ‘key’

aan-nam-e band slot

‘hypothesis’ ‘bond, tie’ ‘slot’

(For the sake of clarity, verbs as bases of word-formation are represented in their stem form in numbered examples, although the usual quotation form in running text is the infinitival form, for instance aannem-en, bind-en, sluit-en). Compounding and affixation are not the only means of enrichment of the lexicon. Many complex words have been and are being borrowed from other languages, with consequences for the Dutch word-formation system (section 6). Words may also have arisen through grammaticalization (the process in which words of lexical categories have become grammatical morphemes) and univerbation (the fusion of a word sequence into one word). An example of the emergence of a new grammatical word through grammaticalization is the change of the past participle ge-zie-n ‘seen’ into a preposition, as in gezien dit argument ‘because of this argument’. Univerbation can be observed in a number of complex conjunctions such as om-dat ‘because; lit. for-that’, and door-dat ‘because; lit. through-that’. The outputs of regular word-formation processes belong to lexical categories, but grammaticalization and univerbation may lead to complex words of grammatical categories, such as conjunctions and prepositions. For instance, the preposition boven-op ‘on top of’ is a univerbation of the adverb boven ‘above’ and the preposition op ‘on’, as in bovenop de auto ‘on top of the car’. There is no word-formation process for forming complex prepositions, as such processes only create words of lexical categories. Conversion, the creation of new words on the basis of existing words without any overt morphological marking, is a productive process of Dutch as well (section 5). In addition to regular compounding, Dutch allows for neoclassical compounding, in which one or both of the constituents is a root of Greek or Latin origin that does not occur as an independent word. For instance, the Greek root bio- ‘life’ is not only found in a borrowed word like bio-logie ‘biology’, but is also used in combination with Dutch words, since this root is also used as an abbreviation of the word biologisch ‘biological, environment-friendly’, as in bio-afval ‘biological waste’ and bio-boer ‘organic farmer’ (Meesters 2004). Various roots thus obtained a second life through their use in neoclassical compounds. Another class of complex expressions that should be mentioned in this overview are particle verbs, also called separable complex verbs. An example is the particle verb vóorkomen ‘to occur; lit. fore-come’. The difference between prefixed verbs and particle verbs is that the particle in particle verbs can be separated from the verb stem. For instance, in main clauses of Dutch the finite verb form appears in second position, whereas the particle is stranded at the end of the clause. This difference between prefixed verbs and particle verbs is illustrated in (2) where the particle verb vóor-komen contrasts with the prefixed verb voor-kómen ‘to prevent’ (the accents indicate the location of main stress):

2430 (2)

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European a. Dit verschijnsel komt nauwelijks voor. This phenomenon comes hardly for ‘This phenomenon hardly occurs.’ b. Jan voor-kwam een ernstig ongeluk. John fore-came a serious accident ‘John prevented a serious accident.’

Therefore, particle verbs cannot be considered morphological constructs. Instead, they have to be seen as phrasal constructs (Blom 2005; Booij 2010; Los et al. 2012). These phrasal verbs compete with prefixed verbs in the formation of various semantic subcategories of verbal predicates. The issue of the proper demarcation of morphology and syntax also pops up in dealing with compounds. In Dutch, phrases such as harde schijf ‘hard disk’ are an alternative to adjective-noun compounds. Because such phrases are often lexicalized, one may be inclined to consider such phrases as words. However, this is incorrect as it confuses the notions “word” and “lexical item”: all words are lexical items, but not all lexical items are words. Therefore, the construction of such phrasal expressions does not belong to morphology proper. The properties of these phrasal expressions are discussed in Booij (2010, ch. 7).

3. Composition Compounding is a very productive process in Dutch. Compounds consist of a head word (simplex or complex) and another word or phrase. Dutch compounds are, with a few exceptions, endocentric and right-headed. The head word belongs to one of the categories N, V, A, whereas the constituent in initial position may also be an adverb, a quantifier, or a phrase. In addition, there are copulative compounds.

3.1. Nominal compounds Let us first consider nominal compounds, which form the most productive category. Examples are given in (3): (3)

NN AN VN AdvN QA NP N

[[bureau]N[lade]N]N [[groot]A[vader]N]N [[kook]V[pot]N]N [[lang]Adv[slaper]N]N [[drie]Q[hoek]N]N [[oude mannen]NP [huis]N]N

‘desk drawer’ ‘grandfather’ ‘cooking pot’ ‘late riser; lit. long sleeper’ ‘triangle’ ‘old men’s house’

The productivity of nominal compounding, in particular of NN compounds, is increased by the fact that both constituents can be compounds themselves, that is, NN compounds exhibit recursivity. However, if the first constituent is an A, it is normally simplex (with

136. Dutch

2431

some exceptions such as speciaal-zaak ‘specialist shop’, in which the adjective speciaal ‘special’ is, at least formally, complex). There is no structural constraint on the degree of recursivity allowed in NN compounds, but it is obvious that a compound with too much recursivity will cause processing problems: (4)

[[[[woon]V[ruimte]N]N[verdelings]N]N[[advies]N[commissie]N]N]N ‘housing accommodation distribution advice committee’ [[[[milieu]N[effect]N]N[rapportage]N]N[[bijeen]Adv[komst]N]N]N ‘environment effect reporting meeting’

The head status of the right constituent of a nominal compound is clear from its semantic interpretation (an XY is a kind of Y with some relation to X, not vice versa), from the fact that the right constituent determines the syntactic category, as well as its gender, and in some cases the choice of the plural suffix. Since the gender of compounds is that of the right constituent, we find pairs such as the following: (5)

a. de soep ‘the soup’ de vlees-soep ‘the meat soup’

het vlees het soep-vlees

‘the meat’ ‘the soup meat’

b. het geld het zak-geld

‘the money’ ‘the pocket money’

de zak de geld-zak

‘the pocket, bag’ ‘the money bag’

c. de bal de voet-bal

‘the ball’ ‘the football’

het bal het avond-bal

‘the ball, dancing’ ‘the night ball’

That the choice of the plural suffix is determined by the rightmost noun, is shown nicely by cases where the choice of a plural suffix is lexically determined. For instance, there are two homophonous words portier, each with its own gender, meaning, and plural suffix; the plural suffix choice is transferred to compounds with these words as rightmost constituents: (6)

a. portier nacht-portier

‘doorkeeper’ ‘night doorkeeper’

(non-neuter) (non-neuter)

portier-s nachtpor-tier-s

‘pl’ ‘pl’

b. portier auto-portier

‘car door’ ‘car door’

(neuter) (neuter)

portier-en ‘pl’ auto-portier-en ‘pl’

Certain types of phrases can occur in the initial position of compounds, in particular (but not only) NPs that have a classifying function, and hence receive a generic interpretation: (7)

[[A N]NPN]N [[Q N]NP]N

[[blote-vrouwen]NP [blad]N]N [[hete-lucht]NP [ballon]N]N [[drie-landen]NP [punt]N]N

[[vier-kleuren]NP [druk]N]N [[God is dood]S [theologie]N]N [S N]N [[N en N]NPN]N [[[peper]N en [zout]N]NP [stel]N]N

‘nude women magazine’ ‘hot air balloon’ ‘place where three countries meet; lit. three countries point’ lit. ‘four colours printing’ ‘God-is-dead theology’ ‘pepper and salt set’

2432

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

The phrase in initial position often denotes a form of (fictive) interaction (Pascual and Janssen 2004), as in: (8)

[[wie heeft het gedaan]S [vraag]N]N question’

‘whodunit question; lit. who has it done

where the first constituent has the shape of a WH-question. The first constituent of a compound can be a plural noun, as may be expected since phrases occur in non-head position, and bare plural nouns can function as phrases. Examples are given in (9): (9)

lerar-en-kamer glaz-en-wasser sted-en-raad

‘teachers’ room’ ‘windows cleaner’ ‘cities’ council’

These examples show that syntax may feed word-formation to a certain extent, as certain types of syntactic constituents may form building blocks of Dutch compounds.

3.2. Adjectival compounds Adjectival compounds form a productive category of Dutch compounds. The left constituent can be N, A, Adv or V: (10) NA AA AdvA VA

[[auto]N[vrij]A]A [[peper]N[duur]A]A [[jong]A[getrouwd]A]A [[licht]A[grijs]A]A [[niet]Adv[productief]A]A [[wel]Adv[bekend]A]A [[kots]V[misselijk]A]A [[spil]V[ziek]A]A

‘car-free’ ‘very expensive; lit. pepper expensive’ ‘married young; lit. young-married’ ‘light-grey’ ‘non-productive’ ‘well-known’ ‘very sick; lit. vomit-sick’ ‘wasteful; lit. waste-sick’

The adjectival head can be either simplex or complex (including present and perfect participles). Examples of words with complex heads are the following: (11) [[adem]N[benem-end]A]A [[computer]N[ge-stuur-d]A]A [[milieu]N[vriend-elijk]A]A [[vrouw]N[vijand-ig]A]A

‘breath-tak-ing’ ‘computer-controll-ed’ ‘environment-friend-ly’ ‘misogynic; lit. woman-enemy-SUFFIX’

The non-head position can also be occupied by quantifiers and adverbs: (12) quantifiers: drie-dimensioneel ‘three-dimensional’ drie-dubbel ‘triple; lit. three-double’

136. Dutch adverbs: door-nat in-triest over-gelukkig boven-natuurlijk

2433

‘very wet; lit. through-wet’ ‘very sad; lit. in-sad’ ‘very happy; lit. over-happy’ ‘supra-natural’

A special class of adjectival compounds is formed by synthetic compounds such as blauw-og-ig ‘blue-eye-d’. They are called synthetic because compounding and derivation (with the suffix -ig) seem to apply simultaneously here. There is no existing adjective og-ig ‘eyed’, nor a compound blauw-oog ‘blue-eye’ from which blauwogig could have been derived by means of suffixation. Hence, one may assume one of the following three structures for such synthetic compounds: (13) [[blauw]A [oog]N ig]A [[[blauw]A [oog]N]N ig]A [[blauw]A [[oog]N ig]A]A A discussion of the choice between one of these three options can be found in the literature on Dutch synthetic compounds (Hoeksema 1984; van Santen 1992; Booij 2002).

3.3. Verbal compounds The category of verbal compounds is not productive in Dutch. What we do find are verbal conversions of nominal compounds, such as [[[voet]N [bal]N]N]V ‘to play soccer; lit. foot-ball’. A second source of verbal compounds is backformation. For instance, the compound verb stof-zuig ‘to vacuum-clean; lit. dust-suck’ has been backformed from the NN compound [[stof]N[[zuig]V er]N]N, in which the head zuiger is a deverbal noun. This compound has been reinterpreted as an -er-derivation of the NV compound stofzuig. A second, closed class of verbal compounds is formed by verbs such as the following (Weggelaar 1986): (14) [[klapper]V [tand]N]V [[stamp]V [voet]N]V

‘to have chattering teeth; lit. rattle-tooth’ ‘to stamp one’s feet; lit. stamp-foot’

These compounds are left-headed as far as semantic interpretation and word class is concerned. However, the inflection appears at the right periphery of these verbs. For instance, the past tense singular forms of the verbs in (14) are klappertand-de and stampvoet-te. A third class of verbal compounds are the so-called immobile verbs such as zeezeilen ‘to sail on sea; lit. sea-sail’. These compound verbs are called immobile because the two parts cannot be split in main clauses where the finite part of a verbal predicate appears in second position, after the first constituent. Immobile verbs are not defective verbs, i.e. verbs without finite forms, because the finite forms do appear in embedded clauses:

2434

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

(15) a. Mijn vader {*zee-zeilt vaak / *zeilt vaak zee}. My father {*sea-sails often / *sails sea often}. b. … dat mijn vader vaak zee-zeilt … that my father often sea-sails These compounds can be considered syntactic compounds, with the following structure: (16) [[zee]N0 [zeil]V0]V0 Since they are syntactic compounds, they cannot be split in main clauses, as this is forbidden by the principle of lexical integrity that stipulates that syntactic rules cannot move parts of words (i.e. structures dominated by X0 nodes) (Booij 2010, ch. 4). On the other hand, they do not appear in second position in main clauses, as they are not one word morphologically (cf. 15a). A final class of expressions that look like verbal compounds is the class of separable complex verbs mentioned in section 2. The first part of these complex verbs is a particle, an adjective, or a noun. The adjectives and nouns involved are non-projecting words, that is, words that do not project a phrase. For instance, the adjective wit in witwassen cannot be modified by an adverb, witness the ungrammaticality of the verb phrase het geld helemaal wit wassen ‘to completely white-wash the money’. Hence, they cannot be modified. Examples are: (17) [[door]P [fietsen]V]V’ [[wit]A [was]V]V’ [[deel]N [neem]V]V’

‘to continue cycling; lit. through-cycle’ ‘to launder money; lit. white-wash’ ‘to participate; lit. part-take’

As these word sequences can be split in main clauses, they must be considered phrasal in nature, and hence, their dominating node is V’. In addition, the first part can be optionally incorporated, thus giving rise to syntactic compounds of the type illustrated in (16). In their incorporated form, they can appear after raising verbs such as willen ‘to want’, and thus we get the following type of word-order variation (Booij 2010, ch. 5): (18) … dat ik {wil door-fietsen / door wil fietsen} ‘that I want to continue cycling’ The availability of these types of verbal construction compensates for the absence of a productive process of verbal compound formation. The NV sequence stof-zuigen ‘to vacuum clean’ mentioned above has been reinterpreted either as a verbal compound or as a separable complex verb. In the first interpretation, this compound verb is inflected regularly, whereas in the second interpretation, with a separate verb zuigen ‘to suck’, the irregular ablaut inflection is preserved. Hence we can get both Jan stofzuigde and Jan zoog stof as the Dutch equivalent of John vacuumcleaned.

136. Dutch

2435

3.4. Numerals and copulative compounds Certain subsets of numerals in Dutch are formed by means of compounding, coordination, or a combination thereof: (19) compounding

coordination

asyndetic coordination coordination + compounding

vijf-tien ‘five-ten, 15’ (addition) drie-honderd ‘three-hundred, 300’ (multiplication) drie-en-negentig ‘three-and-ninety, 93’ (addition) honderd-en-drie ‘hundred-and-three, 103’ (addition) honderd-drie ‘hundred-three, 103’ (addition) drie-honderd-(en)-drie ‘three-hundred- (and) three, 303’ (multiplication and addition)

Numerals ending in tien ‘ten’ receive an additive interpretation. In the compound numerals > 100, the right constituent is the head noun (honderd ‘100’, duizend ‘1000’, etc.), and the modifier is the multiplier. The use of syntactic coordination for numerals below 100 is subject to the constraint that the lower digit has to precede the higher digit (as in drie-en-negentig ‘93’), whereas the reverse order applies for numerals higher than 100; for instance, drie-en-honderd is not a possible form for the numeral 103. Moreover, it is only in numerals > 100 that the conjunction en can be omitted. The phonetic realization of en varies: in numbers < 100 it is realized as [ən], but as [εn] in numerals > 100 (Booij 2010, ch. 8). Asyndetic coordination is also used in the construction of copulative compounds (also called co-compounds), and in the non-head constituent of a right-headed nominal compound: (20) a. copulative compounds [[prins]N[gemaal]N]N [[rood]A [wit]A [blauw]A]A [[hoeste]V [proesten]V]V

‘prince-spouse’ ‘red-white-blue (colour of the Dutch flag)’ ‘to cough-sneeze’

b. coordinated constituents in initial position [[maag]N [darm]N]NP [kanaal]N]N ‘gastro-intestinal tract; lit. stomachintestine-canal’ [[[zit]V [slaap]V]VP [kamer]N]N ‘bed-sitting room; lit. sit-sleep room’ [[los]A[vast]A]AP [relatie]N]N ‘unstable relationship; lit. loose-fast relation’ In the compounds in (20a) there is no semantic head. For instance, the first example denotes a person who is both a prince and a spouse. The inflection is always on the right

2436

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

periphery as illustrated by the phrase de rood-wit-blauw-e vlag ‘the red-white-blue-flag’, in which the inflectional ending -e is only present in the last constituent blauwe.

3.5. Affixoids Compounds may form word families with a common first or last constituent. For instance, there are a large number of adjectival compounds ending in vrij ‘free’, such as belasting-vrij ‘tax-free’, lood-vrij ‘lead-free’, and zuur-vrij ‘acid-free’. The adjective vrij as head of a compound has acquired a specific recurrent and productive meaning ‘without’. Another example of this kind of productive lexicalization is the class of adjectival compounds headed by arm ‘poor’ with the meaning ‘having a low quantity of’, as in vet-arm ‘low-fat; lit. fat-poor’. The occurrence of such productive lexicalized meanings of words embedded in complex words is referred to with the term affixoid or semi-suffix. This phenomenon is the historical source of derivational suffixes, which often originate from words used as the right constituent of a compound. In the same way, prefixes may originate from left constituents of compounds (Booij 2010, ch. 3). An example of a prefixoid is the noun hoofd ‘head’ used with the meaning ‘main’ as in hoofd-bezwaar ‘main objection’. A parallel development can be observed for German, where the equivalent of Dutch hoofd, the word Haupt, is usually qualified as a prefix, as in Haupt-sache ‘main issue’. The German word Haupt is an archaic word for ‘head’ and has been replaced with the noun Kopf. This is why Haupt is analysed as a prefix, cf. article 104 on grammaticalization in German word-formation.

3.6. Linking elements The two constituents of a compound may be linked by the sounds [s] or [ə]. These sounds are remnants of old case suffixes or word endings. They mainly occur in NN and NA compounds. However, they also occur after the verb in some VN compounds which confirms that synchronically they no longer have the status of case suffixes: (21)

NN NN VN VN AN NA

dorp-s-gek per-e-boom scheid-s-rechter hebb-e-dingetje witt-e-brood ap-e-trots

village-LINK-idiot pear-LINK-tree separate-LINK-judge have-LINK-thing white-LINK-bread monkey-LINK-proud

‘village idiot’ ‘pear tree’ ‘referee’ ‘gadget’ ‘white bread’ ‘very proud’

As pointed out in section 3.1, plural nouns can appear in the initial position of compounds as well. The plural suffix -en /ən/ is realized phonetically as [ə] by many speakers, and therefore language users may interpret this sound as a linking element as well. In order to avoid uncertainty as to how to spell compounds, the spelling rules of Dutch require the spelling of the sound [ə] between the two parts of a compound as -en, unless the noun has both a plural form in -(e)n and one in -s (e.g., kade ‘quay’ with the two plural forms kade-s and kade-n, hence kade-muur ‘quay-wall’, not kaden-muur) or the

136. Dutch

2437

noun is singular for semantic reasons (as in man-e-schijn ‘moon-shine’ since this Dutch spelling rule presupposes that there is only one relevant moon). One may wonder to what extent the occurrence of a linking element can be predicted. There appears to be no simple rule. What is certain is that the linking element [ə] can only appear after a noun if that noun selects -en as its plural suffix. Furthermore, analogy appears to play an important role: when coining a new compound, with a high degree of probability the same linking element is chosen as that of existing compounds with the same initial noun (Krott 2001, 2009).

4. Derivation Derivation of complex words in Dutch is possible by means of prefixation or suffixation. In addition, we find remnants of the old Indo-European ablaut system in some lexicalized deverbal nouns. Infixation does not occur. Reduplication is marginal, and only plays a role in playful language such as children’s songs. A well-known generalization is that suffixation tends to determine the category of the output word, whereas prefixation is category-neutral. This generalization might be captured by assuming a right-hand head rule for both affixation and compounding in Dutch (Trommelen and Zonneveld 1986). This tendency reflects the historical development of certain head constituents in right-headed compounds as derivational suffixes. A number of verbalizing prefixes such as be-, ont- and ver-, however, are category-determining, as they may turn adjectives and nouns into verbs, and may also change the syntactic valency or argument selection of base verbs: (22) a.

input bos zat kijk

word ‘wood’ ‘drunk’ ‘to look’

derived word be-bos ‘to afforest’ be-zat ‘to drink excessively’ be-kijk ‘to watch, look at’

b.

kurk ‘cork’ eigen ‘own’ bind ‘to bind’

ont-kurk ‘to uncork’ ont-eigen ‘to expropriate’ ont-bind ‘to dissolve’

c.

geel ‘yellow’ pand ‘pawn’ drink ‘to drink’

ver-geel ‘cause to become yellow’ ver-pand ‘to pawn’ ver-drink ‘to drown’

The tendency for prefixation to be category-neutral can also be seen in the following summary of the category-changing potential of affixation in Dutch: (23) a.

A→N V→N N→N

suffixation prefixation suffixation prefixation suffixation prefixation

schoon − spreek praat moeder zin

‘beautiful’

schoon-heid

‘beauty’

‘to speak’ ‘to talk’ ‘mother’ ‘sense’

sprek-er ge-praat moeder-schap on-zin

‘speaker’ ‘talking’ ‘motherhood’ ‘nonsense’

2438

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European b.

N→A V→A A→A

c.

N→V A→V V→V

suffixation prefixation suffixation prefixation suffixation prefixation

meester − lees − blauw gewoon

‘master’

meester-lijk

‘masterly’

‘to read’

lees-baar

‘readable’

‘blue’ ‘common’

blauw-ig on-gewoon

‘bluish’ ‘uncommon’

suffixation prefixation suffixation prefixation suffixation prefixation

analyse huis kalm bleek krab rijd

‘analysis’ ‘house’ ‘calm’ ‘pale’ ‘to scratch’ ‘to ride’

analys-eer ver-huis kalm-eer ver-bleek krabb-el be-rijd

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

analyze’ move house’ calm down’ turn pale’ scratch’ ride on’

As this summary shows, there are a few gaps in the possibilities of category change with prefixes, which reflects the fact that prefixes tend to be category-neutral. Table 136.1 lists the category-neutral native prefixes: Tab. 136.1: Category-neutral native prefixes Prefix aarts-

meaning ‘very’ ‘of the highest rank’

base category

example

A N N

aarts-lui aarts-schurk aarts-bisschop

‘very lazy’ ‘enormous crook’ ‘archbishop’

her-

‘re-’

V N

her-schrijf her-examen

‘to rewrite’ ‘re-examination’

niet-

‘non-’

N A

niet-roker niet-Christelijk

‘non-smoker’ ‘non-Christian’

oer-

‘very’ ‘original’

A N

oer-gezond oer-mens

‘very healthy’ ‘primitive man’

on-

‘un-, non-’

A N

on-gezond on-zin

‘unhealthy’ ‘nonsense’

opper-

‘upper’

N

opper-hoofd

‘chief’

oud-

‘ex-’

N

oud-student

‘former student’

4.1. Nominal derivation The only nominal prefix is the deverbal suffix ge-. In addition, there is a circumfix ge-...-te that creates collective nouns: (24) a. zeur kots

‘to nag’ ‘to puke’

ge-zeur ge-kots

‘nagging’ ‘repeated puking’

136. Dutch

2439

b. berg steen

‘mountain’ ‘stone, rock’

ge-berg-te ge-steen-te

‘mountain chain’ ‘rocks’

As mentioned above, there are no adjective-creating prefixes in Dutch. Dutch suffixes are category-determining. This is also the case for the very productive diminutive suffix -tje (and its allomorphs -je, -kje, -pje, and -etje). Although it is mainly affixed to nouns, it can also be attached to words of other lexical classes, as illustrated in Table 136.2. The output word is always a neuter noun that selects the plural suffix -s: Tab. 136.2: Diminutives category N A V Num Adv NP PP Pronoun

base vrouw lief dut tien uit twaalf uur onder ons dit en dat

diminutive ‘woman’ ‘sweet’ ‘to nap’ ‘ten’ ‘out’’ ‘12 o’clock’ ‘between us’ ‘this and that’

vrouw-tje lief-je dut-je tien-tje uit-je twaalfuur-tje onderons-je ditjes en datjes

‘small woman, sweetheart’ ‘sweetheart’ ‘nap’ ‘10 guilder note’ ‘outing’ ‘wrapped lunch’ ‘private chat’ ‘odds and ends’

Deverbal nominalizing suffixes are used for the creation of person-denoting nouns, agent, instrument and object nouns, and for action nouns. A survey of types of persondenoting nouns with native suffixes is given in Table 136.3. Tab. 136.3: Native suffixes for person-denoting nouns suffix

base category

base

example

-aar

V N A

wandel zonde eigen

‘to walk’ ‘sin’ ‘own’

wandel-aar zond-aar eigen-aar

‘walker’ ‘sinner’ ‘owner’

-aard

A N

wreed Spanje

‘cruel’ ‘Spain’

wreed-aard Spanj-aard

‘cruel person’ ‘Spaniard’

-der

V N

bestuur Langweer

‘to govern’ ‘id.’

bestuur-der Langweer-der

‘governor’ ‘inhabitant of L.’

-enaar

N

schuld Utrecht

‘debt’ ‘id.’

schuld-enaar Utrecht-enaar

‘debtor’ ‘inhabitant of U.’

werk schip tien doe het zelf

‘to work’ ‘ship’ ‘ten’ ‘do it yourself’

werk-er schipp-er tien-er doe-het-zelv-er

‘worker’ ‘skipper’ ‘teenager’ ‘do-it-yourself-er’

-er

V N Num S

-erd

A

vies

‘dirty’

viez-erd

‘dirty person’

-erik

A

vies

‘dirty’

viez-erik

‘dirty person’

-ier

N

winkel

‘shop’

winkel-ier

‘shopkeeper’

2440

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 136.3: (continued) suffix -(e)ling

base category

base

V N A Num

zuig stad stom twee

example ‘to suck’ ‘city’ ‘stupid’ ‘two’

zuig-eling sted-eling stomm-eling twee-ling

‘infant’ ‘city dweller’ ‘idiot’ ‘twins’

Agent and instrument nouns are derived by means of the suffix -er and its allomorphs, the suffixes -der and -aar. Such deverbal nouns in -er express a variety of meanings. These suffixes attach to both nouns and verbs: (25) a. with base verbs fiets ‘to cycle’ begin ‘to begin’ breek ‘to break’ bijsluit ‘to enclose’ gil ‘to scream’ b. with base nouns Amsterdam ‘Amsterdam’ wetenschap ‘science’

fiets-er beginn-er brek-er bijsluit-er gill-er

‘cyclist’ ‘beginner, freshman’ ‘breaker, wave that breaks’ ‘enclosure’ ‘event of screaming’

Amsterdamm-er wetenschapp-er

‘inhabitant of Amsterdam’ ‘scientist’

The suffix -sel is used to create subject, object, and instrument names: (26) aanslib aanhang schep stijf

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

deposit’ append’ create’ starch’

aanslib-sel aanhang-sel scheps-el stijf-sel

‘deposit’ ‘appendix’ ‘creature’ ‘starch’

Action nouns are formed by a variety of suffixes, some of which are unproductive (-nis and its allomorphs -enis and -tenis, -st, and -t). Note that when -atie is used, it replaces the suffix -eer. Tab. 136.4: Action nouns suffix

base word

derived word

-atie

organis-eer

‘to organize’

organis-atie

‘organization’

-erij

vlieg heks

‘to fly’ ‘witch’

vlieg-erij heks-erij

‘flying business’ ‘witchcraft’

-ing

meet bewapen

‘to measure’ ‘to arm’

met-ing bewapen-ing

‘measurement’ ‘armament’

-nis

stoor

‘to disturb’

stoor-nis

‘disturbance’

-enis

verrijs

‘to rise’

verrijz-enis

‘resurrection’

-tenis

gebeur

‘to happen’

gebeur-tenis

‘happening’

136. Dutch

2441

Tab. 136.4: (continued) suffix

base word

derived word

-st

kom

‘to come’

kom-st

‘coming’

-t

teel

‘to grow’

teel-t

‘growing’

Dutch has quite a number of suffixes for the creation of nouns denoting female persons: Tab. 136.5: Female personal nouns suffix

condition

male noun

female noun

-e

−

fotograaf

‘photographer’

fotograf-e

-es

− base in -aar base in -er

voogd zond-aar zang-er

‘guardian’ ‘sinner’ ‘singer’

voogd-es zondar-es zanger-es

-esse

base in -aris

secret-aris

‘secretary’

secretar-esse

-euse

base in -eur

mass-eur

‘massagist’

mass-euse

-ica

base in -icus

historic-us

‘historian’

historic-a

-ière

base in -ier

cabaret-ier

‘comedian’

caberet-ière

-in

−

leeuw

‘lion’

leeuw-in

-ix

base in -or

rect-or

‘rector’

rect-rix

-rice

base in -eur

ambassad-eur

‘ambassador’

ambassad-rice

-ster

base in -aar base in -ier base in -er

wandel-aar winkel-ier VVD-er

‘walker’ ‘shopkeeper’ ‘member of VVD’

wandelaar-ster winkelier-ster VVD-ster

The choice between these competing suffixes is governed by the morphological shape of the base noun. The suffix -e is considered to be the default choice in van Marle (1985). Unlike what is the case for German, where -in is a very productive suffix for female personal nouns, in Dutch novel female noun are seldom coined. Dutch features a number of suffixes used for the creation of quality and status nouns from nouns and adjectives: -dom, -heid, -te, -schap: (27) christenA schoonA leegA dronkenA vriendN

‘christian’ ‘beautiful’ ‘empty’ ‘drunk’ ‘friend’

christen-dom schoon-heid leeg-te dronken-schap vriend-schap

‘christianity’ ‘beauty’ ‘emptiness’ ‘drunkenness’ ‘friendship’

The deadjectival suffix -te is attached to simplex adjectives only, whereas deadjectival -heid can be attached to complex adjectives as well. The suffix -dom is used to form nouns that denote a group of people, and can be affixed to plural nouns, as in leerlingen-dom ‘body of pupils’.

2442

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

4.2. Adjectival derivation Prefixed adjectives can be derived by means of one of the category-neutral prefixes listed in Table 136.1. The derivation of adjectives by means of suffixation is far more elaborated. Qualitative, property denoting adjectives are created by means of the suffixes listed in Table 136.6. Tab. 136.6: Native adjectival suffixes for qualitative adjectives suffix

stem

derived adjective

-achtig

N V A

rots weiger groen

‘rock’ ‘to refuse’ ‘green’

rots-achtig weiger-achtig groen-achtig

‘rocky’ ‘refusing persistently’ ‘greenish’

-baar

V N

draag vrucht

‘to carry’ ‘fruit’

draag-baar vrucht-baar

‘portable’ ‘fruitful’

-elijk

N V A

god erf bang

‘god’ ‘to inherit’ ‘afraid’

godd-elijk erf-elijk bang-elijk

‘divine’ ‘hereditary’ ‘timid’

-erig

N V A

hout bijt groen

‘wood’ ‘to bite’ ‘green’

hout-erig bijt-erig groen-erig

‘stiff’ ‘biting’ ‘sort of greenish’

-ig

N V A

bloed nalaat groen

‘blood’ ‘to neglect’ ‘green’

bloed-ig nalat-ig groen-ig

‘bloody’ ‘negligent’ ‘greenish’

-loos

N

naam

‘name’

naam-loos

‘nameless’

-zaam

N V A

deugd werk lang

‘virtue’ ‘to work’ ‘long’

deugd-zaam werk-zaam lang-zaam

‘virtuous’ ‘active’ ‘slow’

A second class of complex adjectives consists of the set of relational adjectives. For instance, the adjective atomair in atomaire fysica ‘nuclear physics’ does not denote an inherent quality of fysica ‘physics’ but denotes its relation to the world of atoms. In this relational use, adjectives cannot be modified, and in most cases they can only be used attributively. Table 136.7 lists the suffixes, both native and non-natives ones, that are used for the formation of relational adjectives. Tab. 136.7: Suffixes for relational adjectives suffix

base

noun phrase with relational adjective

-aal

muziek

‘music’

muzik-aal talent

‘musical talent’

-air

atom

‘atom’

atom-aire fysica

‘nuclear physics’

-eel

structuur

‘structure’

structur-ele analyse

‘structural analysis’

-en

zilver

‘silver’

zilver-en ring

‘silver ring’

-er

Edam

‘id.’

Edamm-er kaas

‘Edam cheese’

136. Dutch

2443

Tab. 136.7: (continued) suffix

base

noun phrase with relational adjective

-ief

educatie

‘education’

educat-ief verlof

‘educational sabbatical’

-iek

periode

‘period’

period-ieke controle

‘periodical check’

-ig

toekomst

‘future’

toekomst-ige man

‘to-be husband or future husband’

-isch

filosofie

‘philosophy’

filosof-ische discussie

‘philosophical debate’

-lijk

vader

‘father’

vader-lijk gezag

‘paternal authority’

-ling

mond

‘mouth’

monde-ling examen

‘oral examination’

-oir

emancipatie ‘emancipation’

emancipat-oire activiteiten

‘emancipatory activities’

-s

buitenland

buitenland-s beleid

‘foreign policy’

‘abroad’

Relational adjectives can be interpreted as qualitative adjectives through type coercion. For instance, when the adjective muzikaal ‘musical’ is modified, as in een heel muzikale vader ‘a very musical father’, we are forced to interpret muzikaal as denoting a property of the head noun.

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Prefixation There are three productive category-changing prefixes that create verbs: be-, ver-, and ont-. In addition, there are a few verbs with the unproductive prefixes ge- and -er: Tab. 136.8: Verbal category-changing prefixes prefix

class of base

base word

prefixed verb

be-

N A V

dijk zat kijk

‘dike’ ‘drunken’ ‘to look’

be-dijk be-zat be-kijk

‘to provide with a dike’ ‘to drink excessively’ ‘to watch’

ver-

N A V

film bleek koop

‘film’ ‘pale’ ‘to buy’

ver-film ver-bleek ver-koop

‘to film’ ‘to bleach’ ‘to sell’

ont-

N A V

kurk eigen bind

‘cork’ ‘own’ ‘to bind’

ont-kurk ont-eigen ont-bind

‘to uncork’ ‘to expropriate’ ‘to dissolve’

ge-

V

leid

‘to lead’

ge-leid

‘to guide’

er-

V

ken

‘to know’

er-ken

‘to recognize’

2444

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

A second class of verbalizing prefixes consists of prefixes that correspond to Dutch words. For instance, the morpheme aan ‘at’ is both a prefix and a preposition. Yet, we consider these morphemes prefixes, as they have special meanings when used in complex words, and do not carry main stress (if they were words, they would form compounds and hence carry the main stress of the complex word). Tab. 136.9: Verbal prefixes that correspond to a word prefix

base word

prefixed verb

aan-

bid

‘to pray’

aan-bid

‘to worship’

achter-

haal

‘to fetch’

achter-haal

‘to find out’

door-

snijd spek

‘to cut’ ‘pork’

door-snijd door-spek

‘to cut through’ ‘to interlard with’

mis-

vorm

‘to form’

mis-vorm

‘to deform’

om-

sluit cirkel

‘to close’ ‘circle’

om-sluit om-cirkel

‘to enclose’ ‘to encircle’

onder-

breek titel

‘to break’ ‘title’

onder-breek onder-titel

‘to interrupt’ ‘to subtitle’

over-

win brug

‘to win’ ‘bridge’

over-win over-brug

‘to defeat’ ‘to bridge’

vol-

maak

‘to make’

vol-maak

‘to bring to perfection’

voor-

kom

‘to come’

voor-kom

‘to prevent’

weer-

schijn

‘to shine’

weer-schijn

‘to reflect’

These prefixes are thus a nice illustration of the process of grammaticalization, in which lexical words become grammatical morphemes, since these prefixes derive from words.

4.3.2. Suffixation The creation of complex verbs in Dutch is mainly a matter of prefixation. The only two verbalizing suffixes are -eer and -iseer: (28) a. blond alarm b. modern standaard

‘blond’ ‘alarm’

blond-eer alarm-eer

‘to bleach’ ‘to alarm’

‘modern’ ‘standard’

modern-iseer standaard-iseer

‘to modernize’ ‘to standardize’

The suffix -iseer is a combination of the morphemes -is- and -eer, as can be concluded from the way in which deverbal nouns are formed: the suffix -eer is replaced with the suffix -atie, and this also applies to verbs ending in -iseer: modern-is-eer − modern-isatie ‘modernization’ (only the part -eer is replaced).

136. Dutch

2445

4.4. Adverbial derivation Dutch adjectives can be used as adverbs without any overt morphological marking for adverbial status. Yet, there are a number of suffixes that create adverbs of various types, as illustrated in (29): (29) base word hoog blind menselijk stil groep fatsoen normal ander huis gewoon

‘high’ ‘blind’ ‘human’ ‘quiet’ ‘group’ ‘decency’ ‘normal’ ‘other’ ‘house’ ‘common’

complex adjective hog-elijk blind-elings menselijk-erwijs still-etjes groeps-gewijs fatsoens-halve normal-iter ander-s huis-waarts gewoon-weg

‘highly’ ‘blindly’ ‘humanly’ ‘quietly’ ‘in groups’ ‘for decency’s sake’ ‘normally’ ‘differently’ ‘homeward’ ‘simply’

The productivity of these suffixes varies. The suffixes -iter and -s are unproductive, and some of these suffixes attach to a small set of words only. The suffix -erwijs has developed as a suffix for the formation of evaluative adverbs, as in ongelukkig-erwijs ‘sadly enough’ derived from the adjective ongelukkig ‘unhappy’ (Diepeveen and van de Velde 2010).

5. Conversion Conversion is the process by which words are derived from other words without any overt morphological marking. In Dutch, we find various pairs of related words with the same phonological form, but different lexical class and meaning. The main conversion process in Dutch is the derivation of verbs from nouns. This is a very productive process, although it is not without restrictions. For instance, the names for all kinds of sports can be used as verbs in which that activity is involved: voetball-en ‘to play football’, tennissen ‘to play tennis’. Yet, even N → V conversion is not completely unrestricted. For instance, it would be odd to use nouns that denote food to denote the eating of that food, and hence a verb like brod-en ‘to bread’ is odd. Here is a survey of the various types, with the direction of conversion indicated. The topic of how to determine the direction of conversion in Dutch is dealt with in Don (1993). (30) N V A A

to to to to

V N N V

fiets behoud gek wit

‘bike’ ‘to preserve’ ‘mad’ ‘white’

fiets behoud gek wit

‘to cycle’ ‘preservation’ ‘mad person’ ‘to whiten’

The main criterion for determining the direction of conversion is semantic in nature: the meaning of the word on the right is a compositional function of the word on the left. In the case of behoud ‘preservation’ in (30) there is also a formal indication, as be- is typically a verbalizing prefix: hence the verb is coined first, and the noun derived from the complex verb.

2446

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

6. Borrowed word-formation and neoclassical word-formation Dutch has borrowed many complex words from Greek and Latin, often with French as an intermediate language, and also from French itself. More recently, many English complex words have been borrowed into Dutch. Once a sufficient number of a certain type of complex word has been borrowed, the language user can discover a pattern, and form new words of the same type. For instance, once the user of Dutch has come across a number of de-adjectival nouns ending in -iteit, the Dutch version of French -ité, (s)he can create new complex nouns of this type that need not have an equivalent in French. The rise of new word-formation schemas with non-native affixes is also strengthened by the existence of internationalisms, complex words that are found in most European languages in one form or another. Table 136.10 provides a survey of non-native suffixes in Dutch: Tab. 136.10: Non-native suffixes suffix

base

base word

output

derived word

-aal

N

synode

‘synod’

A

synod-aal

‘synodical’

-aan

N

parochie

‘parish’

N

parochi-aan

‘parishioner’

-aat

N

doctor

‘doctor’

N

doctor-aat

‘doctorate’

-air

N

hypotheek

‘mortgage’

A

hypothek-air

‘mortgage’

-ant

V

predik

‘to preach’

N

predik-ant

‘clergyman’

-aris

N

bibliotheek

‘library’

N

bibliothec-aris

‘librarian’

-ast

N

gymnasium ‘grammar school’

N

gymnasi-ast

‘grammar school pupil’

-atie

V

organiseer

‘to organize’

N

organis-atie

‘organization’

-eel

N

fundament

‘fundament’

A

fundament-eel

‘fundamental’

-eer

N

parfum

‘perfume’

V

parfum-eer

‘to perfume’

-ees

N

Taiwan

‘Taiwan’

N

Taiwan-ees

‘inhabitant of Taiwan’

-ein

N

republiek

‘republic’

N

republik-ein

‘republican’

-erie

N

parfum

‘perfume’

N

parfum-erie

‘perfume shop’

-esse

N

secretaris

‘secretary’

N

secretar-esse

‘secretary, fem.’

-ette

N

opera

‘opera’

N

oper-ette

‘operetta’

-esk

N

ballade

‘ballad’

A

ballad-esk

‘ballad-like’

-eur

N

ambassade

‘embassy’

N

ambassad-eur

‘ambassador’

-eus

N

rancune

‘rancour’

A

rancun-eus

‘rancorous’

-iaan

N

presbyter

‘prebyter’

N

presbyter-iaan

‘presbyterian’

-ide

N

broom

‘bromine’

N

brom-ide

‘bromide’

-ier

N

juweel

‘jewel’

N

juwel-ier

‘juweler’

136. Dutch

2447

Tab. 136.10: (continued) suffix

base

base word

output

derived word

-iet

N

metropool

‘metropolis’

N

metropol-iet

‘metropolitan’

-ieus

N

mode

‘fashion’

A

mod-ieus

‘fashionable’

-ine

A

blond

‘blond’

N

blond-ine

‘blonde’

-isch

N

algebra

‘algebra’

A

algebra-isch

‘algebraic’

-iseer

A

banaal

‘banal’

V

banal-iseer

‘to banalize’

-isme

A

absurd

‘absurd’

N

absurd-isme

‘absurdism’

-ist

N

propaganda ‘propaganda’

N

propagand-ist

‘propagandist’

-oir

N N

emancipatie ‘emancipation’ urine ‘urine’

A N

emancipat-oir urin-oir

‘emancipatory’ ‘urinal’

-oot

N

psyche

N

psych-oot

‘psychotic’

‘psyche’

It is obvious that most language users do not know the historical origin of these suffixes. Yet, the distinction between native and non-native affixes plays a synchronic role because non-native suffixes only attach to non-native base words, as illustrated in (31) for the competing suffixes -iteit (non-native) and -heid (native): (31) blind stabiel

‘blind’ ‘stable’

*blind-iteit / blind-heid stabil-iteit / stabiel-heid

‘blindness’ ‘stability’

Exceptions to this generalizations are words like flauw-iteit ‘silli-ness’ ← flauw ‘silly’ and hondo-loog ‘dog expert’ ← hond ‘dog’ that have a native base; the latter word has an obvious intentional character. Non-native prefixes differ from non-native suffixes in that many of them allow nonnative bases. The non-native negative Latin prefix in- behaves just like non-native suffixes: (32) gewoon ‘common’ stabiel ‘stable’

on-gewoon / *in-gewoon on-stabiel / in-stabiel

‘un-common’ ‘un-stable’

However, most borrowed prefixes do occur with native base words, as illustrated in Table 136.11. Tab. 136.11: Borrowed prefixes with native bases prefix anti- ‘anti-’ co- ‘co-’ contra- ‘contra-’ ex- ‘former-’ hyper- ‘hyper-’ infra- ‘infra-’ loco- ‘vice-’

example anti-godsdienstig co-ouderschap contra-gewicht ex-man hyper-gevoelig infra-rood loco-burgemeester

‘antireligious’ ‘shared parentship after divorce’ ‘counterweight’ ‘former husband’ ‘hypersensitive’ ‘infrared’ ‘vicemayor’

2448

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 136.11: (continued) prefix meta- ‘meta-’ neo- ‘neo-’ pro- ‘pro-’ pseudo- ‘pseudo-’ semi- ‘semi-’ sub- ‘sub-’ super- ‘super-’ turbo- ‘super-’ ultra- ‘ultra-’ vice- ‘vice-’

example meta-taal neo-hervormd pro-apartheid pseudo-wetenschap semi-overheid sub-groep super-gaaf turbo-koe ultra-zacht vice-voorzitter

‘metalanguage’ ‘neoreformed’ ‘pro-apartheid’ ‘pseudoscience’ ‘semigovernment’ ‘subgroup’ ‘very nice’ ‘very productive cow’ ‘very soft’ ‘vice-chairman’

Prefixes may be borrowed indirectly. An example is the use of German über- as a prefix with the meaning ‘to an extreme extent, a prototypical instantiation of’ in present-day English, as in über-nerd. This prefix now also combines with Dutch native nouns such as klootzak ‘jackass’ and nicht ‘homosexual’: über-klootzak, über-nicht. This fashionable use of über is not borrowed from German, but from English. Language contact may also lead to another form of morphological influence: grammatical replication, in which a construction of one language is replicated by another. A morphological example is that both English and Dutch feature adjectival compounds of the type NA, in which A has the form of a past participle, as in computer-controlled and home-made. This type of compound is an old but infrequent type in Dutch, but nowadays used in the technical domain to coin technical words. Its productivity has been boosted in present-day Dutch by the parallel and very frequent use of such NA compounds in English (Hüning and Schlücker 2010).

7. Blending and clipping In addition to regular word-formation processes, Dutch features various forms of what may be referred to as word manufacturing: the creation of new words in such a way that there is no direct compositional interpretation of the new word on the basis of the meaning of its formal constituents. In blending, two words are fused into one. This process is used frequently in English, and Dutch has taken over this process, sometimes inspired by an English equivalent. For instance, the blending of sex ‘id.’ and exploitatie ‘exploitation’ into sexploitatie has a counterpart in English sexploitation. Another example of blending is giromaat, from giro ‘bank giro’ and automaat ‘machine’. In order to grasp the meaning of giromaat, we need the meaning of automaat, which is only partially present in the formal make up of giromaat. What is more productive in Dutch is the use of splinters, morphemes such as English -burger and -gate from hamburger and Watergate respectively. The use of these two borrowed morphemes has become quite productive in Dutch (Hüning 2000; Meesters 2004), and combines with Dutch words, as in kaas-burger ‘cheeseburger’ and Mabelgate ‘political scandal around princess Mabel’. Examples of productive splinters as first

136. Dutch

2449

parts of words are bio-, eco-, and tele-, from biologisch ‘biological’, ecologisch ‘ecological’ and telefoon ‘telephone’ or televisie ‘television’ respectively. These morphemes are often referred to as confixes, bound morphemes with a lexical meaning. Another example is flex- derived from flexible ‘flexible’, which can be used as an initial element in words like flex-werker ‘flexible worker’. Splinters are also used in combination with an ending -o to make nouns that denote certain types of persons, as in lesb-o ‘lesbian person’ (from lesb-isch ‘lesbian’) and Brab-o ‘inhabitant of Brabant’ (from Brabant). Clipping is used to abbreviate long words, as in: (33) aso doka horeca sofinummer stufi

a-sociaal donkere kamer hotel-restaurant-café sociaal-financieel nummer studie-financiering

‘a-social’ ‘dark room’ ‘hotel-restaurant-café’ ‘social security and tax number’ ‘study-grant’

Clipping takes place by means of acronyms. We distinguish two types, letter words, in which the first letters of a complex expression form a new word, and syllable words, where the first letters of each of the constituents is pronounced as a syllable: (34) letter words: Havo = Hoger Algemeen Vormend Onderwijs ‘Higher General Secondary Education’ Hema = Hollandse Eenheidsprijzen Maatschappij ‘Dutch Uniform-prices Company’ syllable words: WAO = Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheid ‘Law on the Labour-unfitness’ bh = bustehouder ‘bosom-holder, bra’

pronunciation [ha:vo:] [he:ma:]

[we:a:o:] [be:ha:]

The use of these various processes of word manufacturing has been boosted by the need of modern society for names for all sorts of new entities, for instance in the world of government regulation and that of electronic devices, and is strongly influenced by the use of the same processes in other European languages, in particular English.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Jenny Audring for her constructive comments on a draft of this text. The research for this article was supported by a Research Award of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, which is gratefully acknowledged here.

2450

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

8. References Aronoff, Mark 1976 Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baayen, R. Harald 2009 Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In: Anke Lüdeling and Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, 900–917. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Blom, Corrien 2005 Complex Predicates in Dutch. Synchrony and Diachrony. Utrecht: LOT. Booij, Geert 1977 Dutch Morphology. A Study of Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Lisse/Dordrecht: Foris. Booij, Geert 1995 The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Booij, Geert 1999 Morfologie. In: Willy Smedts and Petrus Cornelis Paardekooper (eds.), De Nederlandse taalkunde in kaart, 121–128. Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco. Booij, Geert 2002 The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert 2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert and Ariane van Santen 1998 Morfologie. De woordstructuur van het Nederlands. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Diepeveen, Janneke and Freek van de Velde 2010 Adverbial morphology: How Dutch and German move away from English. Journal of Germanic Linguisitics 22: 381–402. Don, Jan 1993 Morphological Conversion. Utrecht: LOT. de Haas, Wim and Mieke Trommelen 1993 Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvorming. ’s Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij. Hoeksema, Jack 1984 Categorial morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Hüning, Matthias 1999 Woordensmederij. De geschiedenis van het suffix -erij. Utrecht: LOT. Hüning, Matthias 2000 Monica en andere gates: Het ontstaan van een morfologisch procédé. Nederlandse Taalkunde 5: 121–132. Hüning, Matthias and Barbara Schlücker 2010 Konvergenz und Divergenz in der Wortbildung − Komposition im Niederländischen und im Deutschen. In: Antje Dammel, Sebastian Kürschner and Damaris Nübling (eds.), Kontrastive Germanistische Linguistik, 783–825. Hildesheim: Olms. Krott, Andrea 2001 Analogy in Morphology. The Selection of Linking Elements in Dutch Compounds. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik. Krott, Andrea 2009 The role of analogy for compounds. In: James P. Blevins and Juliette Blevins (eds.), Analogy in Grammar. Form and Acquisition, 118–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

137. Frisian

2451

Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas and Ans van Kemenade 2012 Morphosyntactic Change. A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Marle, Jaap 1985 On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris. Meesters, Gert 2004 Marginale morfologie in het Nederlands. Paradigmatische samenstellingen, neo-klassieke composita en splintercomposita. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taalen Letterkunde. Pascual, Esther and Theo Janssen 2004 Zinnen in samenstellingen: Presentaties van fictieve verbale interactie. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9: 285–310. van Santen, Ariane 1992 Produktiviteit in taal en taalgebruik. Leiden: University of Leiden. Schultink, Henk 1962 De morfologische valentie van het ongelede adjectief in modern Nederlands. Den Haag: van Goor Zonen. Schultink, Henk 2000 The Netherlands. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation. Vol. 1, 162– 170. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Trommelen, Mieke and Wim Zonneveld 1986 Dutch morphology: Evidence for the right-hand head rule. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 147–169. Weggelaar, Cornelis 1986 Noun incorporation in Dutch. International Journal of American Linguistics 52: 301–305.

Geert Booij, Leiden (Netherlands)

137. Frisian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Other types of word-formation References

Abstract This article gives a broad outline of the word-formation of West Frisian. West Frisian makes use of the basic morphological patterns and affix inventory of Germanic and shows the general characteristics of (Mainland West) Germanic word-formation. Typical

2452

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

for Frisian are the considerable number of “special compounds” deriving from word groups and some relatively young cases of affixation that have originated in word groups as well. As a minority language dominated by Dutch, Frisian has numerous loan translations from Dutch and nearly all neoclassical word-formation enters the language by the intermediary of Dutch. On the other hand, the West Frisian standard language is characterised by a tendency of distancing itself from Dutch, which also affects its wordformation in certain respects.

1. Introduction This article gives a broad outline of the word-formation of West Frisian, the language spoken by ca. 300,000 inhabitants of the province of Fryslân in the North of the Netherlands. West Frisian represents the largest branch of the Frisian language, which further comprises Saterlandic (East Frisian) with ca. 2,000 speakers and North Frisian with ca 8,000 speakers, both spoken in Germany. Only West Frisian has developed a standard language, possesses a full-grown literature and is used in mass media and official transactions to some extent (for general information on Frisian and Frisian Studies, see Munske et al. 2001). The grammars of West Frisian have paid some attention to word-formation (compare, for example, the most recent one by Popkema 2006). Very useful materials and observations have also been brought together in a number of popular language columns (cf. Tamminga 1963–73, 1985). The past forty years have seen a growing stream of more specialist linguistic publications on various aspects of West Frisian word-formation, among them a dissertation on noun incorporation (Dyk 1997) and the first general survey of West Frisian word-formation (Hoekstra 1998).

2. General overview West Frisian word-formation makes use of the basic morphological patterns and affix inventory of Germanic and shows the general characteristics of (Mainland West) Germanic word-formation: highly productive nominal compounding, extensive use of linking morphemes (called “augments” in Hoekstra 1998), predominant suffixation in the nominal and adjectival domain and prefixation in the verbal domain, and formation of verbs by (separable) particles. Typical for Frisian are the relatively large number of “special compounds” deriving from word groups (genitive compounds, adjective-noununiverbations, noun-incorporation verbs) and some relatively young cases of affixation also originating in word groups (derivation with -fol, -mannich, witte-). Some heirloom affixes (e.g., the prefix be-) show rather special uses in West Frisian as well. The special position of West Frisian as a minority language strongly dominated by Dutch on the one hand and a standardizing language striving for access to the higher domains on the other also affects its word-formation in a number of ways. Neologisms in West Frisian are very often loan translations from Dutch, especially when they are connected to official institutions in the Netherlands. Compare Frisian pjutteboartersplak ‘crèche, day care centre’ ← pjut ‘toddler’ + boartersplak ‘place to play’ (← boartsje

137. Frisian

2453

‘to play’ + plak ‘place’, with linking morpheme -ers-) from Dutch peuterspeelplaats ← peuter ‘toddler’ + speelplaats ‘place to play’ (← speel- ‘to play’ + plaats ‘place’). Nearly all neo-clasical words enter the language via Dutch and are adapted to Frisian (e.g., Frisian ynkorporaasje ‘incorporation’, probably via Dutch incorporatie). The written language is characterised by a tendency of distancing (also called hollandophobia), so that in the case of two competing word-formation patterns it may prefer the one that differs most from Dutch, even when it is less frequently used in the Dutchified spoken language (cf. the discussion of derivations with -ens and -heid in section 4.1.2). The introduction of West Frisian as an official language of the provincial government and a number of municipalities, especially from the nineteen eighties onward, not only motivated the creation of new terminology (partly on the basis of Dutch), but also lead to a number of interesting problems in word-formation (de Haan and Hoekstra 1993).

3.

Composition

3.1. Determinative compounds 3.1.1. Nominal compounds Most determinative nominal compounds are of the NN or VN type. Compare skiepfleis ‘mutton’ ← skiep ‘sheep’ + fleis ‘flesh, meat’, sinneljocht ‘sunlight’ ← sinne ‘sun’ + ljocht ‘light’, bûsdoek ‘handkerchief’ ← bûse ‘pocket’ + doek ‘cloth’ (note that with nouns ending in -e the stem without -e can form the first component in compounding and must form the base in derivation) and printflater ‘printing error’ ← printsje ‘to print’ + flater ‘error’, fleanmasine ‘airplane’ ← fleane ‘to fly’ + masine ‘machine’ (note that the verbal stem, not the infinitival citation form, functions as the base in wordformation). A subtype of determinative NN compounds are the appositive compounds, in which the first component modifies the second by predicating it, e.g., eilaam ‘ewe lamb (i.e. lamb that is a ewe)’ ← ei ‘ewe’ + laam ‘lamb’, widdofrou ‘widow (i.e. woman who is a widow)’ ← widdo ‘widow’ + frou ‘woman’, einfûgel ‘duck (i.e. bird that is a duck)’ ← ein ‘duck’ + fûgel ‘bird’. The latter two examples are sometimes referred to as pleonastic compounds. NN compounds may have the linking morphemes -s- and -e-: doarpsbern ‘village child’ ← doarp ‘village’ + bern ‘child’, kowesturt ‘cow’s tail’ ← ko ‘cow’ + sturt ‘tail’. The diminutive suffix (cf. section 4.1.1) can also function as a linking morpheme in NN compounds, e.g., roltsjeredens ‘roller skates’ ← rôle ‘roller’ + redens ‘skates’, boekjefrysk ‘written Frisian’ ← boek ‘book’ + Frysk ‘Frisian’. VN compounds may have the linking morpheme -ers-, e.g., boartersguod ‘toys’ ← boartsje ‘to play’ + guod ‘stuff’, silerswaar ‘sailing weather’ ← sile ‘to sail’ + waar ‘weather’. A special type of NN formations in Frisian are the so-called genitive compounds (cf. Hoekstra 2003). Historically they derive from NN word groups, in which the first noun was a prenominal genitive, and synchronically they still have a number of properties betraying their phrasal origin: (i) they have final stress; (ii) the first component bears an obligatory ending -s or -e that cannot be identified with the linking morphemes -s- and -e-; (iii) there is an obligatory partitive-possessive (or locative-possessive) meaning rela-

2454

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

tion between the two components; and (iv) the first component has definite/specific reference. Some examples are kokensDOAR ‘door of the kitchen’ ← koken ‘kitchen’ + doar ‘door’, skoalleRÚT ‘window of the school’ ← skoalle ‘school’ + rút ‘window’, broeksBÛSE ‘pocket of the trousers’ ← broek ‘trousers’ + bûse ‘pocket’ and tsjerkhôfsHAGE ‘hedge around the graveyard’ ← tsjerkhôf ‘graveyard’ + hage ‘hedge’. The genitive compound kokensDOAR can only denote the door of a specific, contextually salient kitchen (e.g., the kitchen in our house). It cannot be used generically in the sense of ‘door as it is found in kitchens or as it is used for kitchens’. To express the latter Frisian would have to resort to the normal NN compound kokendoar (with initial stress and without a linking morpheme). The genitive compound blocks the specific reading that is in principle available for the NN compound. Determinative nominal compounds with an adjectival first component are not very numerous, e.g., swietrook ‘scent, fragrance’ ← swiet ‘sweet’ + rook ‘smell’, lytsjild ‘change money’ ← lyts ‘small’ + jild ‘money’. Many AN compounds are exocentric, e.g., readboarstke ‘robin’ ← read ‘red’ + boarstke ‘little breast’, groukont ‘person with a fat ass’ ← grou ‘thick, fat’ + kont ‘ass’. AN compounds compete with AN word groups, which may also acquire special lexical meanings: grauwe earte ‘marrowfat peas’ ← grau ‘grey’ + earte ‘peas’. In between AN compounds and AN word groups in Frisian are the AN univerbations. Whereas determinative nominal compounds are normally stressed on the first component, AN univerbations have final stress on the noun like AN word groups, but other than in the latter the adjective cannot be inflected. Compare jongKAT ‘kitten’ ← jong ‘young’ + kat ‘cat’, blauMICH ‘bluebottle; cop’ ← blau ‘blue’ + mich ‘fly’, swierWAAR ‘thunderstorm’ ← swier ‘heavy’ + waar ‘weather’.

3.1.2. Adjectival compounds NA compounds come in two types: those with initial stress like earmsterk ‘with strong arms’ ← earm ‘arm’ + sterk ‘strong’, drankslij ‘alcohol-addicted’ ← drank ‘liquor’ + slij ‘greedy’ and skoaltsjesiik ‘school sick’ ← skoalle ‘school’ + siik ‘sick’ (with the diminutive suffix -tsje as a linking morpheme), and those with final stress and a strong secondary stress on the first component like seefêst ‘seaworthy’ ← see ‘sea’ + fêst ‘fast’, leadfrij ‘unleaded’ ← lead ‘lead’ + frij ‘free’ and hûnsdûm ‘mad, having rabies’ ← hûn ‘dog’ + dûm ‘mad’ (with a linking morpheme -s-). AA and VA compounds, which are not very productive, always have final stress, e.g., donkergrien ‘dark green’ ← donker ‘dark’ + grien ‘green’ and printree ‘ready to print’ ← printsje ‘to print’ + ree ‘ready’.

3.1.3. Verbal compounds Like other Germanic languages Frisian does not productively form verbal compounds. Normally such compounds can only appear as the non-head of other complex words, e.g., boekprintkeunst ‘art of printing’ ← *boekprintsje (← boek ‘book’ + printsje ‘to print’) + keunst ‘art’. When verbal compounds occur in Germanic languages they usually result from backformation and their use is mainly restricted to non-finite forms. Frisian possesses a large number of NV compounds, however, that do not show such a restriction

137. Frisian

2455

(cf. Dyk 1997). Compare kofjedrinke ‘to drink coffee’ ← kofje ‘coffee’ + drinke ‘to drink’ in Hja kofjedronken altiten om alve oere ‘They always drank coffee (lit. coffeedrank) at eleven o’clock’. Some further examples are noassnute ‘to blow one’s nose’ ← noas ‘nose’ + snute ‘to blow’, skuonpoetse ‘to polish one’s shoes’ ← skuon ‘shoes’ + poetse ‘to polish’, itensiede ‘to cook dinner’ ← iten ‘food’ + siede ‘to cook’. Most of these verbs denote conventionalised actions. They may have linking morphemes: -e- and the diminutive ending, e.g., brieveskriuwe ‘to write letters’ ← brief ‘letter’ + skriuwe ‘to write’, kontsjedraaie ‘to shake one’s ass’ ← kont ‘ass’ + draai- ‘to turn’. Although these verbs have been analysed as cases of noun incorporation, it seems more likely that they result from backformation as well. That Frisian allows backformation to apply so freely may be due to the fact that some types of to-infinitives in Frisian allow nouns (as well as other material) to appear between ‘to’ and the infinitive, e.g., Hy begûn te autohimmeljen ‘He began to clean the car (lit. to car-clean)’. An unproductive type of compound verbs are those of the VN type. Compare skodholje ‘shake one’s head’ ← skodzje ‘to shake’ + holle ‘head’ and giselsturtsje ‘to wag one’s tail’ ← giselje ‘to turn, move fast’ + sturt ‘tail’. Like other Germanic languages Frisian may form compound-like combinations of a (stressed) particle and a verb: delbêdzje ‘to pacify’ ← del ‘down’ + bêdzje ‘to bed’, omdangelje ‘to stroll around’ ← om ‘around’ + dangelje ‘to stroll’, útstjerre ‘to die out’ ← út ‘out’ + stjerre ‘to die’. The particle is separated from the verb in verb secondclauses and in to-infinitives: … dat er de stien optilde ‘that he lifted the stone’, hy tilde de stien op ‘he lifted the stone’, … om de stien op te tillen ‘to lift the stone’. Due to this separability, particle verbs are probably best analysed as lexical word groups. Some particles may also appear as (inseparable, unstressed) prefixes, e.g., foarsizze ‘to predict, foresay’ ← foar ‘fore’ + sizze ‘to say’, omskriuwe ‘to paraphrase’ ← om ‘around’ + skriuwe ‘to write’. Frisian sometimes differs from the neighbouring languages in this respect. Thus, for example, oer- ‘over-’ and troch- ‘through’ are basically used as particles in Frisian, not as prefixes as in Dutch and German. Compare Frisian Buorman ried ús kat oer ‘The neighbour drove over our cat’ to Dutch Buurman overreed onze kat and German Der Nachbar überfuhr unsere Katze. Or Frisian De plysje siket it hûs troch ‘The police search the house’ to Dutch De politie doorzoekt het huis and German Die Polizei durchsucht das Haus.

3.2. Copulative compounds Frisian possesses copulative compounds consisting of two nouns or two adjectives, e.g., skoalmaster-dichter ‘schoolmaster-poet’ ← skoalmaster ‘schoolmaster’ + dichter ‘poet’ and swartwyt ‘black and white’ ← swart ‘black’ + wyt ‘white’. VV copulative compounds only appear marginally as the non-head of other complex words, e.g., fyts-kuierrûte ‘hike and bike trail’ ← fyts-kuier- ‘to hike and bike’ (← fyts- ‘to bike, cycle’ + kuier- ‘to hike, walk’) + rûte ‘route’.

2456

4.

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Derivation

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Denominal nouns Denominal nouns formed by prefixation denote degree of relationship (stypmem ‘stepmother’), status (haadstêd ‘capital city’), negative valuation (wanbestek ‘misshapen figure’) or the opposite of the base (ûnrjocht ‘injustice’). Most denominal nouns are formed by suffixation. Frisian has three diminutive suffixes with a complementary distribution: -je appears after velar consonants, -tsje after the alveolar consonants d, l, n and t, and -ke elsewhere, e.g., (it) tsjerkje ‘little church’ ← (de) tsjerke ‘church’, (it) stientsje ‘little stone’ ← (de) stien ‘hand’, (it) aike ‘little egg’ ← (it) aai ‘egg’. Diminutives are always neuter (i.e. they take the definite article it), even if the base is common gender (i.e. takes the definite article de). Collective nouns are formed by the unproductive suffix -t(e) (fûgelt ‘birds’ ← fûgel ‘bird’, bledte ‘leaves’ ← blêd ‘leaf’) or by the productive suffix -guod, that derives from the noun guod ‘stuff’ (beamkeguod ‘bushes’ ← beamke ‘bush (little tree)’, berneguod ‘children’ ← bern ‘child’). The following suffixes may be used to denote female persons: -inne (Friezinne ‘Frisian (woman)’ ← Fries ‘Frisian’), -esse (prinsesse ‘princess’ ← prins ‘prince’) and -ske (kammeraatske ‘(female) friend, mate’ ← kammeraat ‘mate’). As in English the adjective fol ‘full’ has developed into a suffix in Frisian (cf. Hoekstra 1988). Derivations with -fol are always neuter and can be pluralised. Compare (it) kroadfol ‘wheelbarrowful’ ← (de) kroade ‘wheelbarrow’, hânfol ‘handful’ − hanfollen ‘handfuls’ ← hân ‘hand’. The quantifier (in) mannich ‘some’ has become a suffix in formations like jiermannich ‘some years’ ← jier ‘year’, metermannich ‘some meters’ ← meter ‘meter’ and kearmannich ‘some times’ ← kear ‘time’. The numeral twa ‘two’ can also appear as a suffix, e.g., deitwa ‘a few days’ ← dei ‘day’, reistwa ‘a few times’ ← reis ‘time’. Both -mannich and -twa result from the grammaticalisation of syntactic phrases of the type in N of Q/Num (e.g., in dei of twa ‘a day or two’). The base is normally a measure noun, but there is a tendency to extend the pattern to other nouns, e.g., boekmannich ‘some books’ ← boek ‘book’ (cf. Hoekstra 1992).

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Deadjectival nouns are quality nouns or property bearers. Quality nouns are formed by the suffixes -ens, -heid and -ichheid (cf. Hoekstra 1990). The suffixes -ens and -heid are partly in competition with each other (cf. van der Meer 1987). Whereas -ens is basically unrestricted, -heid may not be attached to bases ending in a stressed syllable (except for a few loans from Dutch), e.g., swietens ‘sweetness’ ← swiet ‘sweet’ vs. *swietheid, frijens ‘being free; cheekiness’ ← frij ‘free; cheeky’ and frijheid ‘freedom’ (< Dutch vrijheid). In other cases both suffixes are possible. There seems to be a slight tendency

137. Frisian

2457

to use -ens with bases ending in schwa + sonorant and with underived bases: neakenens ‘nudity’ ← neaken ‘nude’ rather than neakenheid, but boartlikheid ‘playfulness’ ← boartlik ‘playful’ rather than boartlikens. Note that -ens is sometimes preferred over -heid in the written language to distinguish Frisian from Dutch, which only has the suffix -heid. Whereas -ens is semantically transparent, -heid allows semantic drift. Unlike derivations with -ens derivations with -heid can be pluralised (normally as pluralia tantum) and can form the base of further word-formation processes. Compare nijmoadrichheden ‘new-fashioned things’ ← nijmoadrich ‘new-fashioned’ (*nijmoadrichheid) and twatalichheidsûndersyk ‘bilingualism research’ (twatalichheid/twataligens ‘bilingualism’, *twataligensûndersyk). The suffix -ichheid differs from -ens and -heid in having a collective meaning (‘complex of instantiations of the property denoted by the base’) and often a pejorative connotation. Compare grutskichheid ‘pride (overbearing attitude)’ ← grutsk ‘proud’ to grutskens ‘pride’. Some other less productive or non-productive suffixes, deriving quality nouns are -te (gledte ‘slipperiness’ ← glêd ‘slippery’, rûnte ‘round, circle’ ← rûn ‘round’), -(t)me (swietme ‘sweetness’ ← swiet ‘sweet’, stiltme ‘quietness’ ← stil ‘quiet’), -skip (blydskip ‘joy’ ← bliid ‘happy’, deilesskip ‘quarrel, controversy’ ← deiles ‘quarreling, at odds’) and -dom (rykdom ‘wealth’ ← ryk ‘rich’, frijdom ‘freedom’ ← frij ‘free’). The following suffixes may be used to form nouns denoting property bearers (often with a pejorative connotation): -eling (healwizeling ‘fool’ ← healwiis ‘foolish’), -ert/-kert (leffert ‘coward’ ← lef ‘cowardly’, moaikert ‘beautiful specimen’ ← moai ‘beautiful’) and the formal diminutive suffix (keintsje ‘prude woman’ ← kein ‘prude’). Interestingly, the ending -sma of many Frisian family names (e.g., Boersma) has developed into a suffix as well, e.g., aakliksma ‘creep’ ← aaklik ‘repulsive’ and ûnmoogliksma ‘impossible person’ ← ûnmooglik ‘impossible’.

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns The distinctions that we found with the quality-noun-forming suffixes -ens, -heid and -ichheid are mirrrored to some extent by the affixes that are used to form action nouns: -en, -ing and ge-/-erij (cf. Hoekstra 1990). Whereas the infinitival suffix -en most of the time forms semantically transparent action nouns, e.g., rinnen ‘walking’ ← rinne ‘to walk’, -ing shows quite some semantic drift. Although derivations with -ing are basically action nouns, e.g., feroaring ‘changing, change’ ← feroarje ‘to change’, they may also function as agent nouns (beweging ‘movement (action group)’ ← bewege ‘to move’), patient nouns (utering ‘utterance’ ← uterje ‘to utter’), instrument nouns (freding ‘fence’ ← freedzje ‘to fence’) and place nouns (lining ‘leaning’ ← lynje ‘to lean’). Unlike derivations with -en, those with -ing can be pluralised (e.g., feroaringen ‘changes’) and form the base of further word-formation processes (útstallingsromte ‘exhibition room’). The prefix ge- and the suffix -erij form collective action nouns (a complex of instantiations of the action denoted by the base), often with a pejorative connotation. Compare gepraat ‘(constant, irritating) talking’ and praterij ‘id.’ ← prate ‘to talk’ or gelekskoai ‘faultfinding’ and lekskoaierij ‘id.’ ← lekskoaie ‘to find fault with’. Whereas derivations with ge- are normally semantically transparent, those with -erij show a good deal of semantic drift, e.g., iterij ‘meal, dinner; edibles’ ← ite ‘to eat’, bakkerij ‘bakery’ ←

2458

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

bakke ‘to bake’, slieperij ‘sleeping accommodation’ ← sliepe ‘to sleep’. An (emphatic) variant of -erij is -eraasje, which combines -erij with the neoclassical suffix -aasje ‘-ation’, e.g., striderij ‘fight, conflict’ and strideraasje ‘id.’ ← stride ‘to fight’. As in other Germanic languages agent nouns are formed with the suffix -er, e.g., skriuwer ‘writer’ ← skriuwe ‘to write’, bodder ‘toiler’ ← bodzje ‘to toil’, meidogger ‘participant’ ← meidwaan ‘to take part in, join’. Derivations with -er also occur as patient nouns (omparter ‘handout’ ← omparte ‘to distribute’), instrument nouns (túnklauwer ‘garden rake’ ← tún ‘garden’ + klauwe ‘to scratch’) and action nouns (reinder ‘constant rain’ ← reine ‘to rain’). A causative denotation is found in formations like snuver ‘bicycle ride against the wind’ ← snuve ‘to sniff’ and switter ‘hard job’ ← switte ‘to sweat’. The suffix -er, which is basically unmarked for natural gender, has an explicitly female counterpart -ster, e.g., sjonger ‘singer’ and sjongster ‘female singer’ ← sjonge ‘to sing’, tsjoender ‘magician’ and tsjoenster ‘female magician, witch’ ← tsjoene ‘to perform magic’. Finally the suffix -er (or maybe rather another suffix -er) with the extended variants -ster and -(e)mer is used to form inhabitant names on the basis of place names: Hitsumer ‘inhabitant of Hitsum’, Abbegeaster ‘inhabitant of Abbegea’, Westergeastmer ‘inhabitant of Westergeast’. The suffix variant -ster and the further variants -ker and -tsjer can also have other place nouns as their base: seedykster ‘person living at the dike’ ← seedyk ‘sea dike’, klaiker ‘person living in the clay district of Fryslân’ ← klaai ‘clay’, stedsjer ‘city dweller’ ← stêd ‘city’. The suffix -sel is basically used to form inanimate patient nouns, e.g., efterheaksel ‘suffix’ ← efterheakje ‘to attach behind’. Examples like ferskynsel ‘phenomenon’ ← ferskine ‘to appear’, ynslûpsel ‘interference’ ← ynslûpe ‘to steal into’ and oerbliuwsel ‘rest, relic’ ← oerbliuwe ‘to stay behind, remain’ might also belong here; the unaccusative verbs, from which they derive, have a patient argument that functions as the subject. Derivations with -sel can also occur as instrument nouns, e.g., strjemsel ‘rennet’ ← strjemme ‘to curdle (milk)’, or result nouns, e.g., slypsel ‘swarf’ ← slypje ‘to grind’. The suffix -(e)ling is used to form animate patient nouns. It is attached to (inherently) passive base verbs, e.g., oerwinneling ‘bastard’ ← oerwinne ‘to give birth to a child out of wedlock’, beskermeling ‘protégé’ ← beskermje ‘to protect’. It may also take unaccusative verbs as its base: oankommeling ‘adolescent’ ← oankomme ‘to grow up’, flechtling ‘refugee’ ← flechtsje ‘to flee’.

4.2. Adjectival derivation 4.2.1. Denominal adjectives Denominal adjectives are formed by suffixation. The most productive suffix deriving adjectives from nouns is -ich. Derivations with -ich denote something like ‘with N’ or ‘like N’. Compare stiennich ‘stony’ ← stien ‘stone’, moudich ‘dusty’ ← moude ‘dust’, bizich ‘jocular’ ← biis ‘joker’, lytsbernich ‘childish’ ← lyts ‘small’ + bern ‘child’. Some derivations with -ich have a variant on -erich: gatt(er)ich ‘full of holes’ ← gat ‘hole’, winich/wynderich ‘windy’ ← wyn ‘wind’, skeinsprut(er)ich ‘freckled’ ← skeinsprút ‘freckle’. Other less productive suffixes with similar functions are -eftich (keardeleftich ‘manly, like a man’ ← keardel ‘man’, famkeseftich ‘girl-like’ ← famke ‘girl’), -e (lang-

137. Frisian

2459

skonke ‘long-legged’ ← lang ‘long’ + skonk ‘leg’), -lik (minsklik ‘human’ ← minske ‘man, human being’, noedlik ‘risky’ ← noed ‘risk’), -sk (stedsk ‘urban’ ← stêd ‘city’, moarnsk ‘grumpy in the morning’ ← moarn ‘morning’). Material adjectives are formed with the suffixes -en and -s. The suffix -s appears after nouns ending in -en, -el and -je, e.g., linnens ‘linen’ ← linnen ‘linen’, duffels ‘duffel’ ← duffel ‘duffel’, flenjes ‘flannel’ ← flenje ‘flannel’. The suffix may also be combined with diminutives to denote the pattern of cloth: streekjes ‘striped’ ← streekje ‘(little) stripe’, rútsjes ‘checkered’ ← rútsje ‘(little) rout’. The suffix -en is used elsewhere: sulveren ‘silver’ ← sulver ‘silver’, houten ‘wooden’ ← hout ‘wood’, papierren ‘paper’ ← papier ‘paper’. The suffix -leas (English -less) occurs, for example, in helpleas ‘helpless’ ← help ‘help’ and wurkleas ‘unemployed’ ← wurk ‘work’.

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Deadjectival adjectives can be formed by prefixation and suffixation. Prefixes used to derive deadjectival adjectives are negative or intensifying. The negative suffix ûn- is found in formations like ûnwis ‘uncertain’ ← wis ‘certain’, ûnlêsber ‘unreadable’ ← lêsber ‘readable’ and ûnreplik ‘immovable’ ← replik ‘movable’. If the adjectival base is a simple past participle, the prefix ge-, which is normally lacking in Frisian past participles, is inserted as a linking morpheme, e.g., ûngesean ‘uncooked’ ← sean ‘cooked’, ûngekjimd ‘uncombed’ ← kjimd ‘combed’ and ûngefrege ‘unasked’ ← frege ‘asked’. Some intensifying prefixes are troch- (trochearlik ‘honest through and through’ ← earlik ‘honest’, trochwiet ‘wet through, soaked’ ← wiet ‘wet’), yn- (ynfrom ‘very pious’ ← from ‘pious’, ynfrysk ‘very Frisian’ ← Frysk ‘Frisian’), oer- (oersêd ‘surfeited’ ← sêd ‘satisfied, sated’, (net) oergrut ‘(not) very big’ ← grut ‘big’) and poer- (poerlilk ‘very angry’ ← lilk ‘angry’, poerneaken ‘stark naked’ ← neaken ‘naked’). An interesting intensifying prefix is witte- (also withoe-) in formations like wittelet ‘very late’ ← let ‘late’, wittedjoer ‘very expensive’ ← djoer ‘expensive’ and wittefolle ‘very many/much’ ← folle ‘many/much’. It originates from the syntactic phrase wa wit hoe ‘who knows how’ (cf. Dyk 1988). Also first elements of original NN, AN or VN compounds have sometimes developed into intensifying suffix-like elements, e.g., deawurch ‘very tired’ ← dea ‘death’ + wurch ‘tired’, gleonhastich ‘very hasty’ ← gleon ‘glowing’ + hastich ‘hasty’ and smoardronken ‘very drunk’ ← smoare ‘choke’ + dronken ‘drunk’. The following prefixes have a special function: eigen- (from the adjective eigen ‘own’) and nij- (from the adjective nij ‘new’) that only combine with past participles. Compare eigenbakt ‘home-baked’ ← bakt ‘baked’ and eigenbreide ‘home-knitted’ ← breide ‘knitted’ as well as nijberne ‘newborn’ ← berne ‘born’ and nijmeand ‘newly mowed’ ← meand ‘mowed’. The most important suffix deriving adjectives from adjectives is -ich. Derivations with these suffixes have the downtoning denotation ‘somewhat A’ or ‘rather A’. The suffix -ich is, for example, found in readich ‘reddish’ ← read ‘red’, soerich ‘sourish’ ← soer ‘sour’ and healwizich ‘somewhat silly’ ← healwiis ‘foolish, silly’.

2460

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal adjectives are formed by suffixation. The suffixes -(er)ich and -sk derive adjectives denoting an inclination to the action denoted by the verb. Compare teiich ‘thawy’ ← teie ‘to thaw’, neinimmich ‘resentful’ ← neinimme ‘to resent’, swiersettich ‘melancholic’ ← swier ‘heavy’ + sette ‘to put’, sigerich ‘draughty’ ← sige ‘to draw’, húnsk ‘sneering’ ← hune ‘to sneer’. The suffixes -ber, -lik and -sum have an additional modal or modal-passive meaning component. Adjectives derived with -ber have a passive meaning and denote possibility: brûkber ‘usable’ ← brûke ‘to use’, betrouber ‘reliable’ ← betrouwe ‘to trust’. Adjectives with -lik can denote possibility or necessity and can be active or passive. Compare begryplik ‘clever, bright-minded’ ← begripe ‘to understand’, begrutlik ‘deplorable’ ← begrutsje ‘to feel sorry’, oannimlik ‘plausible’ ← oannimme ‘to accept’, winsklik ‘desirable’ ← winskje ‘to wish’. They can also have non-modal uses, e.g., boartlik ‘playful’ ← boartsje ‘to play’. Derivations with -sum have basically the same possibilities: sjongsum ‘nice to sing’ ← sjong ‘to sing’, duorsum ‘lasting, sustainable’ ← duorje ‘to last’, grousum ‘gruesome, dreadful’ ← grouje ‘to dread’, skrepsum ‘hard-working’ ← skreppe ‘to work hard’. Typical for -sum is the modalcausative meaning in adjectives like groeisum ‘furthering growth (e.g., weather)’ ← groeie ‘to grow’ and wurksum ‘causing a lot of work’ ← wurkje ‘to work’.

4.3. Verbal derivation Verbs are normally derived from other verbs by prefixation and from non-verbal categories by conversion. The few suffixes deriving verbs from verbs have an iterative or diminutive meaning. The unproductive suffixes -er and -el, known from other West Germanic languages as well, appear in verbs like stoartelje ‘to stumble’ ← stoarte ‘to fall’ and snokkerje ‘to sob, snivel’ ← snokke ‘to sob, snivel’. Rather special for Frisian is the suffix -k (cf. van der Meer 1988, 1989), which is found in derivations like drafkje ‘to go in an easy trot’ ← drave ‘to trot’, dripkje ‘to trickle’ ← drippe ‘to drip’ and farkje ‘to boat’ ← farre ‘to sail’. Frisian has two classes of weak verbs, class I, ending in -e in the infinitive, and class II, ending in -je in the infinitive. All verbs derived by suffixation belong to the second, unmarked class of weak verbs in -je. Frisian possesses the same inventory of prefixes as the other West Germanic languages (be-, fer-, te-, ûnt-) and they have basically the same functions. The prefix be- is a transitivising prefix in derivations like beprate ‘to discuss’ ← prate ‘to talk’ and beskrieme ‘to beweep’ ← skrieme ‘to weep’. The prefix fer- denotes change of state, often with a negative connotation. Compare fertôgje ‘to carry away’ ← tôgje ‘to carry (heavy things)’ and ferwâdzje ‘to tread down’ ← wâdzje ‘to tread’. Derivations with the prefix te- (German zer-) denote that something is destroyed by the action described by the base verb: tebrekke ‘to break to pieces’ ← brekke ‘to break’, tebite ‘to bite to pieces’ ← bite ‘to bite’, terane ‘to melt away’ ← rane ‘to melt’. The prefix ûnt- is used to form privative verbs like ûntkrije ‘to take away’ ← krije ‘to take’ and ûntfalle ‘to fall out of one’s hands’ ← falle ‘to fall’. Particularly the prefix be- shows some special meaning developments in Frisian (cf. Veenstra 1988) in which the base verb is not syntactically or semantically changed by

137. Frisian

2461

the prefix, but modifies an overt predicate. Thus derivations with be- can mean ‘to get or reach by performing the action denoted by the base’. Compare betrouwe ‘to get by marrying’ ← trouwe ‘to marry’ in Jelle hie in pleats betroud ‘Jelle had gotten a farm by marrying’, berinne ‘to get by walking’ ← rinne ‘to walk’ in Ik hie toarst berûn ‘I got thirsty by walking’ and beroppe ‘to reach by calling’ ← roppe ‘to call’ in Hy koe har net mear beroppe ‘He could not reach her anymore by calling’. Or they can denote something like ‘to put into something by performing the action of the base’. Compare bebakke ‘to put into something by baking’ ← bakke ‘to bake’ in De resinen waarden yn ’e boffert bebakt ‘the raisins were integrated in the ring cake by baking’, bedraaie ‘to put into something by turning’ ← draaie ‘to turn’ in It skiep sit yn it tou bedraaid ‘The sheep got itself tangled up in the rope by turning’ and bewuolje ‘to put into something by wrapping’ ← wuolje ‘to wrap’ in It skilderij waard yn in tekken bewuolle ‘The painting was wrapped into a blanket’. Finally derivation with be- can mean ‘to get into a certain state or condition by performing or undergoing the action denoted by the base’. Compare besiede ‘to get lesser by cooking’ ← siede ‘to cook’ in Spinaazje besiedt altyd tige ‘Spinach always diminishes a lot by cooking it’, bebrûke ‘to get handy by using’ ← brûke ‘to use’ in Nij ark moat earst wat bebrûke ‘New tools must first get handy by using them’ and bereizgje ‘to get into a certain physical condition by travelling’ ← reizgje ‘to travel’ in Binne jimme goed bereizge? ‘Are you fit after your trip?’ Conversion verbs are discussed in section 5.

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adjectives used as adverbs are not specifically marked in Frisian. Some manner and temporal adverbs can be optionally marked by the aspectual suffix -wei that stresses that the action proceeds in time. Compare Jitske sette rimpen(wei) de koffer del ‘Jitske put down the suitcase ungently’ and De sinne gie stadich(wei) ûnder ‘Slowly the sun went down’. In this function the suffix -wei is also used with adverbially used present participles: Pratendewei bedarren se yn Grou ‘Talking all the way (while they were talking all the time) they arrived in Grou’. The suffix -oan has a similar function. It is optionally used with comparatives and temporal adverbs. Compare It waard drokker(oan) op ’e merk ‘It was getting busier (and busier) on the market’ and De sinne gie stadich(oan) ûnder ‘Slowly the sun went down’. A special suffix is -kes/-tsjes/-jes, the combination of the diminutive suffix with an adverbial -s. Derivations with this suffix can be adverbs or adjectives; as adjectives they are normally used predicatively. They have a downtoning function. Compare nyskes ‘a (short) while ago’ ← niis ‘a while ago’, súntsjes (with truncation of -ich) or sunichjes ‘(very) slowly; (very) softly’ ← sunich ‘slowly; softly’, himmeltsjes ‘(quite) decent(ly)’ ← himmel ‘decent(ly)’ and behindichjes ‘(very) carefully’ ← behindich ‘carefully’. The suffix -s derives temporal adverbs (cf. Hoekstra 1989). When the base is a discontinuous time unit the derivation has a universally quantifying meaning. Compare jûns ‘every evening’ ← jûn ‘evening’, tongersdeis ‘every Thursday’ ← tongersdei ‘Thursday’, maitiids ‘every spring’ ← maitiid ‘spring’. When the base is a continuous time unit the derivation has a distributive meaning. Compare deis ‘a day’ ← dei ‘day’ in twa lepfollen deis ‘two spoonfuls a day’, wyks ‘a week’ ← wike ‘week’ in trije kear wyks

2462

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

‘three times a week’, and jiers (← jier ‘year’) in fjouwer nûmers jiers ‘four numbers a year’. Temporal adverbs in -s can be the base of prefixation with (h)okker-: okkerjûns ‘lately one evening’, okkersneins ‘lately one Sunday’, okkerdeis ‘lately one day’, okkerjiers ‘for a few years’.

5. Conversion 5.1. Nominal conversion Adjectives can be converted into neuter nouns with non-human reference denoting property bearers. Compare (it) tsjuster ‘(the) dark’ ← tsjuster ‘dark’, wyt ‘white (colour); aim’ ← wyt ‘white’, Frysk ‘Frisian (language)’ ← Frysk ‘Frisian’ and with animate, non-human reference (it) jong ‘young animal’ ← jong ‘young’. An adjective-noun conversion is also contained in fixed lexical phrases like (it) weak fan ’t liif ‘stomach; lit. soft part of the body’ ← weak ‘soft’, grou fan ’e noas ‘bridge of the noas’ ← grou ‘thick’, glêd fan ’e termen ‘mucous membrane; lit. the slimy part of the bowels’ ← glêd ‘slippery, slimy’. Adjective-noun conversions with human reference are scarce. The few examples there are have common gender: (de) ferwoest ‘wild person’ ← ferwoest ‘wild’, frjemd ‘stranger’ ← frjemd ‘strange’, âld ‘adult, grown-up’ ← âld ‘old’ in prate, smoke, etc., as in âld ‘to talk, smoke, etc., as a grown-up’. Inflected adjectives can also be lexicalised as nouns and in that case have a contextually independent (non-elliptic) person or thing interpretation. Compare (de) bline ‘blind (person)’ ← blyn ‘blind’ and (it) droege ‘dry land’ ← droech ‘dry’. Simple verbs can be converted into common gender action nouns. Compare (de) fal ‘fall’ ← falle ‘to fall’, stomp ‘punch’ ← stompe ‘to punch’, help ‘help’ ← helpe ‘to help’. Nouns showing ablaut may also belong here synchronically: smeet ‘throw’ ← smite ‘to throw’, rook ‘smell’ ← rûke ‘to smell’, sprong ‘jump’ ← springe ‘to jump’. Prefix and particle verbs converted into nouns have neuter and common gender respectively. Compare (it) fersin ‘mistake, error’ ← fersinne ‘to err’, ûnthâld ‘memory’ ← ûnthâlde ‘to remember’ and (de) ynfier ‘import’ ← ynfiere ‘to import’, útris ‘equipment’ ← útrisse ‘to equip’. In general verb-noun conversions show the same semantic drift as other action nouns. A special meaning development with these nouns in Frisian is ‘capability of performing the action denoted by the base’. Compare blaas ‘capability of blowing’ ← blaze ‘to blow’, knyp ‘capability of pinching, strength (hands)’ ← knipe ‘to pinch’ and trochset ‘perseverance’ ← trochsette ‘to persevere’.

5.2. Verbal conversion Verbs are derived from non-verbal categories by conversion. All conversion verbs belong to the second, unmarked class of weak verbs in -je, except those with a stem-final front vowel, which belong to the first class of weak verbs on -e. Compare tennisje ‘to play tennis’ ← tennis ‘tennis’, slûgje ‘to snooze’ ← slûch ‘sleepy’, útfanhúzje ‘to stay with someone for a while, lodge’ ← útfanhûs ‘staying with someone for a while; lit. out of

137. Frisian

2463

house’, fjouwerje ‘to gallop’ ← fjouwer ‘four’, jûchheie ‘to cheer, shout for joy’ ← jûchhei ‘hooray’. The stem of conversion verbs is sometimes extended with a productive linking morpheme -k or -t (the latter only appearing in some verbs with a stem-final -n). This linking morpheme derives from the suffix -k historically, but lacks its iterative/ diminutive meaning (cf. van der Meer 1988, 1989). The morpheme -k-/t might alternatively be analysed as a verbalising suffix, but in that function it would do nothing that could not be achieved by simple conversion and we would have to give up the generalization that verbs are derived from verbs by affixation (mainly prefixation) and from nonverbal categories by conversion. Compare fûstkje ‘to shake hands’ ← fûst ‘fist’, túnkje ‘to garden’ ← tún ‘garden’, loaikje ‘to laze’ ← loai ‘lazy’, dookje ‘to address with do’ ← do ‘you (informal)’, teantsje ‘to walk on tiptoe’ ← tean ‘toe’ and sintsje ‘to sunbathe’ ← sinne ‘sun’. Unproductive linking morphemes are -ig- (in verbs with a stem final dental consonant), -el- and -er-: sinnigje ‘to like, please’ ← sin ‘mind, mood’, fredigje ‘to fence’ ← frede ‘peace’, nestelje ‘to nest’ ← nêst ‘nest’, wynderje ‘to make wind’ ← wyn ‘wind’. Conversion verbs can be the base of prefixation. The conversion verb bargje ‘to mess, spill food’ ← baarch ‘pig’ can, for example, be the base for prefixation with be-, e.g., bebargje ‘to make messy’. Prefix verbs like bedykje ‘to dike, provide with a dike’ from dykje ‘to dike’ ← dyk ‘dike’ may have formed the point of departure for an extension of the pattern be-N(-je) to cases in which there is no existing conversion base. Compare bedobje ‘to bury’ ← *dobje, dobbe ‘pit’, bewurkmasterje ‘to cause’ ← *wurkmasterje, wurkmaster ‘agent, causer, perpetrator’. Or with an adjective: belytsje ‘to diminish’ ← *lytsje, lyts ‘little’. Similarly with the prefixes fer- and ûnt-: ferhûneloartsje ‘to perish’ ← *hûneloartsje, hûneloarte ‘dog excrement’, ferfryskje ‘to translate into Frisian’ ← *fryskje, Frysk ‘Frisian’; ûnthaadzje ‘to decapitate’ ← *haadzje, haad ‘head’, ûntbleatsje ‘to unveil’ ← *bleatsje, bleat ‘naked’. Although these verbs clearly result from pattern extension, I will not follow the proposal often found in the literature that the prefixes be-, fer- and ûnt- may also take a nominal or adjectival base to form verbs. From a formal point of view, these verbs are still prefixations of conversion verbs, be it nonexisting ones. Note that in these prefix verbs the same linking morphemes may occur as in bare conversion verbs: bememkje ‘to mother’ ← *memkje, mem ‘mother’, fermoaikje ‘to embellish’ ← *moaikje, moai ‘beautiful’, ferneatigje ‘to destroy’ ← *neatigje, neat ‘nothing’, ferwylderje ‘to become wild’ ← *wylderje, wyld ‘wild’.

6. Other types of word-formation Some other types of word-formation are found in the affective domain of the language or in conscious creative use. Formations like poermâl ‘very angry’ ← poer ‘pure’ + mâl ‘angry’, reinferlegen ‘completely at a loss’ ← rein ‘pure’ + ferlegen ‘at a loss’ or sikerwier ‘really true’ ← siker ‘certain’ + wier ‘true’, with an intensifying prefix or prefixlike first component, may show infixation with similar elements that have an extra strengthening effect: poerstrontmâl (stront ‘shit’), reinstienferlegen (stien ‘stone’), sikersûndewier (sûnde ‘sin’). Intensifying reduplication is sometimes found with adverbs, e.g., gau gau ‘very quickly’ ← gau ‘quickly’, and with interjections, e.g., no! no! ‘gosh’ ← no! ‘gosh’, also nokes! nokes! with the adverbial suffix -kes.

2464

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Some examples of blending are prakketinke ‘to think deeply (iron.)’ ← prakkesearje ‘to think deeply’ x tinke ‘to think’, Frollânsk ‘dutchified Frisian’ ← Frysk ‘Frisian’ x Hollânsk ‘Dutch’ and Ferstival ‘Frisian poetry recital contest for children’ ← fers ‘poem’ x festival ‘festival’. Clipping is found in Top en Twel, a popular designation for the Frisian twin village of Toppenhuzen en Twellegea. Acronyms are formed as in other Germanic languages, e.g., FA [ɛf a:] = Fryske Akademy ‘Frisian Academy’, FNP [ɛf ɛn pe:] = Fryske Nasjonale Partij ‘Frisian National Party’, AFUK [a:fuk] = Algemiene Fryske Underrjuchts Kommisje ‘General Frisian Education Committee’ (on acronyms in Frisian, see Visser 2013). Genuine cases of word-creation are rare. Interesting is the popular word for ‘to email’: eamelje. Due to its superficial similarity with the official word e-mailje ‘e-mail’, a noun-verb conversion of e-mail ‘to e-mail’, it was coined after the existing Frisian verb eamelje, which means ‘to grumble, mumble’. The corresponding new noun eamel ‘e-mail’ was formed from this word by verb-noun conversion.

7. References Dyk, Siebren 1988 Oer it efterheaksel witte- (withoe-) en syn syntaktysk komôf. In: Siebren Dyk and Germen de Haan (eds.), Wurdfoarried en wurdgrammatika. In bondel leksikale stúdzjes, 21−44. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Dyk, Siebren 1997 Noun Incorporation in Frisian. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. de Haan, Rienk and Jarich Hoekstra 1993 Morfologyske tûkelteammen by de leksikale útwreiding fan it Frysk. It Beaken 55: 14− 31. Hoekstra, Jarich 1988 -fol, fol en de syntaksis fan mjitteoantsjuttingen. In: Siebren Dyk and Germen de Haan (eds.), Wurdfoarried en wurdgrammatika. In bondel leksikale stúdzjes, 74−114. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Hoekstra, Jarich 1989 Bywurden fan tiid op -s. Tydskrift foar Fryske Taalkunde 5: 1−32. Hoekstra, Jarich 1990 Adjektiefnominalisatie in het Fries. Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap 9: 273− 285. Hoekstra, Jarich 1992 In dei of trije: Tusken leksikon en syntaksis. In: Philologica Frisica Anno 1990, 63−89. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Hoekstra, Jarich 1998 Fryske wurdfoarming. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Hoekstra, Jarich 2003 Genitive compounds in West Frisian as lexical phrases. Journal of Comparative Germanic Syntax 6: 227−259. van der Meer, Geart 1987 Friese afleidingen op -ens en -heid (een geval van morfologische rivaliteit?). Spektator 17: 360−367. van der Meer, Geart 1988 k-verbs in some West-Germanic languages. NOWELE 11: 51−72; 12: 3−14.

138. Yiddish

2465

van der Meer, Geart 1989 Aspects of verbal repetition and diminution (verbs with -k- in Frisian and Gronings). In: Werner Abraham and Theo Janssen (eds.), Tempus − Aspekt − Modus. Die lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen, 323−341. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Munske, Horst Haider, Nils Århammar, Volkert F. Faltings, Jarich Hoekstra, Oebele Vries, Alastair G. H. Walker and Ommo Wilts (eds.) 2001 Handbuch des Friesischen / Handbook of Frisian Studies. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Popkema, Jan 2006 Grammatika Fries. De regels van het Fries. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Tamminga, Douwe Annes 1963–73 Op ’e taelhelling. Losse trochsneden fan Frysk taellibben. 2 Vol. Boalsert: Osinga. Tamminga, Douwe Annes 1985 Kantekers. Fersprate stikken oer taal en literatuer. Estrikken LXVII. Grins: S.F. Frysk Ynstitút oan de Ryksuniversiteit te Grins. Veenstra, Durk H. 1988 Oer de grammatika fan be-verba. In: Siebren Dyk and Germen de Haan (eds.), Wurdfoarried en wurdgrammatika. In bondel leksikale stúdzjes, 136−174. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Visser, Willem 2013 Acronyms in Modern West Frisian. In: Jarich Hoekstra (ed.), Twenty-Nine Smiles for Alastair. Freundesgabe für Dr. Alastair G. H. Walker zu seinem Abschied von der Nordfriesischen Wörterbuchstelle der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel am 4. Juli 2013, 317–334. Kiel: Abteilung für Frisistik / Nordfriesische Wörterbuchstelle.

Jarich F. Hoekstra, Kiel (Germany)

138. Yiddish 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping References

Abstract This article contrasts Yiddish word-formation with German, its next of kin and the main source for Yiddish word-formation devices. Other main influences stem from Slavic languages and Hebrew, the latter not presented in this handbook. Hebrew rules have very limited productivity in Yiddish, though Hebrew loanwords fit into recognizable patterns

2466

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

(some of which would be described as syntactical in Hebrew grammar). The typical multilingualism of Yiddish speakers makes it difficult to distinguish between productive rules and borrowing of complex words, especially when dealing with Neo-Latin formations which are mentioned only occasionally.

1. Introduction In 1923, M. Weinreich (p. 24) wrote in his programmatic overview of Yiddish research: “mit di andere teyln fun der gramatik konen mir zikh opfartikn bekitser. vegn yidisher vortbildung hobn mir gornisht” [other parts of grammar can be dealt with briefly; on Yiddish word-formation, there is nothing]. Since then, some progress has been made, but there is still no satisfactory monographic treatment of the subject. As a result of the wide geographical spread of the Yiddish language, research on Yiddish has been conducted within a variety of linguistic traditions. Although many prominent linguists, even after World War II, were Yiddish speakers and have published on Yiddish amongst other topics, Yiddish research since then has had to concentrate on other subjects so that word-formation and many other areas of Yiddish synchronic linguistics lag far behind other European languages. Individual aspects of Yiddish wordformation have been the subject of articles. Yiddish grammars and textbooks usually consider such phenomena at some length. This is especially true of the grammars produced in the Soviet Union (Zaretski 1926; Falkovitsh 1940). Therefore phenomena linked to word-formation that have come to the fore in the second half of the 20th century have received scant or no attention (but see the index in Jacobs 2005 and Vaisbrot 2012). Katz’s grammar (1987) also discusses several aspects of word-formation in a short but original and insightful way. One of the most intensively researched areas is the influence of Slavic on Yiddish preverbs of German origin: Landau’s seminal article (1928) led to many studies concentrating on single preverbs or types of modification. Among the few bibliographies on Yiddish linguistics, only Bratkowsky (1988) includes a caption on “word-formation” (nr. 207−216), mostly referring to quite meagre publications. These and others are scattered and based on very diverse material, experience and theoretical positions. Studies of single texts or authors often include descriptions of the vocabulary, but do not usually dwell on word-formation, except when neology plays an important part (Mark 1974). For the most part, scattered information still has to be culled from language teaching manuals (Schaechter 1993; Goldberg 1996) or grammars. Dictionaries do not include extensive treatments of affixes, though they characterize separable verb prefixes and some productive suffixes (especially Niborski and Vaisbrot 2011). Searchable corpuses are still in their infancy. For these reasons, the following article is often programmatic and deals more precisely with some specific phenomena, illustrating them with examples that would be hard to find in extant reference material. References are kept to a minimum.

2. General overview The most salient and permanent traits of Yiddish are its fusional character and the component consciousness of its speakers (linked to their multilingualism).

138. Yiddish

2467

Yiddish is a fusional language with a Germanic basis, where the main components (Germanic, Hebrew-Aramaic, Slavic and Romance) all contribute to a specific mix. A modern influx of words dubbed “internationalisms” (“foreignisms”) mainly transmitted through the channel of (modern German or) Slavic languages until World War II, accounts among others for the spread of “neoclassical” words. As a result of the lasting importance of a learning tradition based on Hebrew texts and of interaction with the co-territorial languages of the non-Jewish majority, words pertaining − or not − to a holy register create a divide through the Yiddish vocabulary to which Slavic words are subordinated (of course this “component consciousness” can in some cases be at variance with philological knowledge). Some affixes are limited in their scope to their component of origin (esp. Slavic or Hebrew) and only occasionally extend beyond the component borders while others apply “universally”. Yiddish word-formation makes wide use of composition and derivation, as is the case in other Germanic languages. Inner derivation, “ablaut”, has left traces but is not productive. “Umlaut” can be found in diminutives which have an affinity to the plural. More “exotic” (also mainly) vocalic alternations are inherited from Hebrew. These cannot be dealt with at any length here, but it should be noted that the plural form of the stem (i.e. without the ending) is often the base for suffixation (e.g., shadkhn ‘matchmaker’, pl. shadkhonim, adj. shadkhonish, profession/efforts/salary shadkhones). The interaction of Yiddish with a variety of languages has had an impact on the form of international suffixes. As yet, no reliable findings are available about the influence of co-territorial languages in new diaspora countries on the comparative weight of different word-formation phenomena.

3. Composition The very flexible composition pattern Yiddish owes to German (head second) is complemented by a different Hebrew type of composition (head first, “constructus”) and balanced by the enhanced flexibility in adjectival derivation due to Slavic influence. Nonnominal composition plays a more marginal role; copulative composition plays a greater role than it does in German. Normative orthography (taking accent patterns into account) results in the writing of compound nouns (though not most adjectives or adverbs) as a single typographical unit (as is done in German) but modern English influence often leads to printing them as two units and undermines the understanding of compounding phenomena.

3.1. Nominal composition Very long compounds do not occur in Yiddish for two reasons: the ease with which adjectives can be formed; and the lack of an administrative language, where such compounds are typically used, for instance, in German. In practice, polymorphemic compounds are limited to occasional compounds using a lexicalized compound as base (vayntroybn-hengl ‘bunch of grapes’, rosh-khoydesh-gelt ‘money for the new (Jewish) month’,

2468

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

bes-din-shames ‘assistant of the rabbinical court’, shtot-balebos ‘community notable’, motse-yom-kiper ‘close of Yom-Kippur’). Extension of the Hebrew model beyond the Hebrew component is marginal and most of the potential examples are liable to other interpretations, though the parallelism of the Hebrew construction may have played an ancillary part, specifically: − in the conversion of an adverbial locution (onheyb yor ‘(at the) beginning of the year’); − in the development of a quasi-prefix out of a series of Hebrew “compounds”, e.g., hilkhes-kortn ‘card game (matters)’, bal-darfer ‘needy person’, bal- is used productively as well to designate the ‘possessor’ of a character trait as in bal-tayve(nik) ‘lecher’ or to designate the author of a book whose title (preceded by the Hebrew article ha-) forms the second part of the word, even when this title is not in Hebrew as in bal-haverterbukh ‘author of the dictionary’. Another sign of the Hebrew model being an adjunct to the pervasive German model is that in seemingly Hebrew constructs the second element determines gender and takes the mark of pluralization (as it couldn’t in Hebrew), e.g., seyfer-toyre(s) ‘torah scroll(s)’, ksav-yad(n) ‘manuscript(s)’. The main type of compounding is similar to German and has similar properties (see article 134 on German). Appearance of a linking -n- or -(e)s- (“Fuge”) is vestigial but frequent enough to appear in analogical new words (lebnsyor ‘year (of life)’, folk(s)lid ‘folk song’, toytnbet ‘deathbed’, mayzndrek ‘mouse droppings’, see article 32 on linking elements in Germanic). Yiddish also has a sizeable group of additive (not only copulative, cf. kale-moyd ‘marriageable girl; lit. bride-girl’) compounds: tate-mame ‘parents; lit. father-mother’, zeyde-bobe ‘grandparents; lit. grandfather-grandmother’, gopl-meser ‘cutlery; lit. forkknife’, khosn-kale ‘married couple; lit. bridegroom-bride’, etc. (Neuberg 2012). Two diachronic phenomena are worth a brief mention: some short compounds preserve a first unique morpheme that has become obsolete (mol-tsayt ‘meal’, gin-gold ‘pure gold’, grim-tsorn ‘wrath’, tenen-boym ‘spruce’, kandl-tsuker = tsuker-kandl ‘rock candy’) or has gone through a phonetic evolution that has made it partly or completely unanalyzable (tishtekh ‘table cloth’ ← tish+tukh, boyml ‘(edible) oil’ ← boym+eyl, trivaks ‘sealing wax’ ← trif+vaks, layvnt ‘canvas’ ← layn+vant, kimpet ‘childbirth’ ← kind+bet, bavl ‘cotton’ ← boym+vol). German type compounding of Hebrew words shows the preeminence of this form of compounding and when occurring in early texts, shows the wide usage of the combined elements in everyday language (shabes-goye ‘non-Jewish woman engaged to perform chores forbidden to Jews on the Sabbath’ (1602), yeshive-bokher ‘yeshivah student’, targem-loshn ‘Aramaic’ (1635)). Yiddish historical lexicography still being in its infancy, the dates are indicative, and may have to be revised in the near future, even though the earliest Yiddish texts shun Hebrew loanwords. On the other hand, some collocations showing the reverse order, though not (or not entirely) of Hebrew origin, are liable to an interpretation as “Hebrew style” compounds, thus: sof-vokh (‘week-end’; sof is the Hebrew component word for ‘end’) or the direct complementation of teyl ‘part’ without an article (already attested in Yiddish before 1500 though unknown in German).

138. Yiddish

2469

3.2. Adjectival composition Many seemingly compounded adjectives are derivations from compounds or word groups (heys-blutik ‘hot-blooded’, voyl-lernerish ‘learned in Jewish matters; lit. welllearn-er’, blut-dorshtik ‘blood-thirsty’, ofn-hartsik ‘candid; lit. open-heart-ed’), but some first elements have given rise to series, so that compounding and derivation may appear as simultaneous (fil- -tsolik ‘numerous’, -zaytik ‘many-sided’, etc.; ful- -blutik ‘robust’, -vertik ‘adequate’, etc.; halb- ‘half-’, glaykh- ‘same-’, voyl- ‘well-’, etc.). Compounds of two adjectives are common, especially when combining adjectives of colour, and many more in poetry. Compounds of common adjectives with a noun (or a synchronically unidentifiable morpheme) as first part are crystallized comparisons giving rise to an emphatic variant of the adjective (funk nay, shpigl nay ‘brand new’, muter naket ‘stark naked’, etc.), sometimes giving rise to a series where the first element becomes a quasiprefix, especially when its meaning has become obscured, cf. shtok fintster, shtok tunkl ‘pitch dark’, shtok toyb ‘stone deaf’, etc. The original pairing with darkness also gives rise to nouns: shtok-fintsternish, shtok-nakht. Certain coordinative compounds (see article 40 on co-compounds) mark the hesitation between two related adjectives or adverbs: tsvey-dray ‘two or three’, kentlekh-umkentlekh ‘half familiar; lit. familiar-unfamiliar’, morgn-ibermorgn ‘tomorrow or the day after tomorrow’, nekhtn-eyernekhtn ‘yesterday or the day before’.

3.3. Verbal composition As in German, verbal composition is very rare if verbs with a separable particle are analyzed as derivatives. Some periphrastic verbs (comprising an auxiliary verb and an indeclinable part, usually a Hebrew participle, cf. mezaveg zayn ‘to match, couple’, noyheg zayn ‘to be wont to’, mushve vern ‘to reach a compromise’, etc.) include a lexicalized object. When each part is also known as a simple(r) word, the whole is easily analyzable (mevaker-khoyle zayn ‘to visit (the sick)’, mekabl-ponim zayn ‘to welcome’, shoyel-eytse zayn zikh ‘to seek advice, consult’).

3.4. Other Calque translation of Hebrew has produced some examples of complex prepositions, but these have not extended beyond the style of historical bible translation (tsu-far ‘unto’, fun-far/fun-kegn/fun-op ‘away from’, tsu-kegn ‘against’, etc.). These add to a few historical cases also found in German (antkegn iber, cf. German gegenüber ‘opposite’) or those not recognized as a (new) unit in older German: bis gen, which gave rise to Yiddish bizkl ‘until’.

2470

4.

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Derivation

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Denominal nouns International suffixes have few specific traits because of the influence of various coterritorial languages. They show a marked Slavic influence but may vary regionally. This leads to the use of neoclassical words as they are employed in the official language of the country where the speaker or writer lives (ambitsye ‘ambition’ with its English or with its Polish connotation ‘stubbornness’), to the spreading of neoclassical words in an area or with a meaning rarely found in other non-Eastern European languages (utrakvistish designating the capacity of Yiddish orthography to represent different dialectal pronunciations under the same guise). Pertinent to word-formation is the suffix -yade designating an epic narrative centred on the person or locale designated by the base word. Usage of this literary suffix is modeled on the Russian -shtchina; Zaretski (1926) mentions oblomovyade, petlyuryade, karamazovyade and Sutskever uses lideryade and kanalyade (from lider ‘poems’ resp. kanal as the last word of Geheymshtot ‘Secret City’, about survival in the canalizations of the Vilna ghetto). Loan prefixes can often be replaced by indigenous equivalents: eksby oys-, ur- ‘original’ by kadmen-, konter- by kegn-, sub- by unter-, negative in- and its variants by um- or nit- (umlegal, umlegitim) with a complex distribution. Hebrew nouns meaning ‘work or post/role of a …’ typically end in -ones because these words often are derived with the -n from the corresponding Hebrew root: badkhones ‘profession of the badkhn (entertainer at traditional weddings)’, rabones ‘… of the rabbi’, shadkhones ‘… of the shadkhn (matchmaker)’, shtadlones ‘… of a shtadlen (intercessor)’, etc. The same Hebrew derivation also applies to other bases: katsoves ‘butcher’s trade’, shamoses ‘position of beadle’, etc. Two typical functions of noun suffixes, feminization and diminution (and related), shall now be briefly dealt with. The f e m i n i z a t i o n of nouns, except for humans and familiar animals where separate words exist for male and female, uses various suffixes: the German (i)n (‫ ־ין‬where the /i/ is written but not heard), the Slavic-origin -she, -ke and -ikhe (as well as -nitse and -atshke/itshke as feminine counterparts to -nik and accentuated -ak/-ik), the Hebrew -te (written phonetically ‫ ־טע‬despite its Aramaic origin ‫)־תּא‬. The distribution is somewhat complicated by dialect differences. − -ikhe is used for animals (ber ‘bear’, tiger ‘tiger’, fuks ‘fox’, etc., exceptions: khazerte ‘sow’, eyzlte ‘she-ass’) and personal names (given and family names, designating ‘the wife of’); − -she modifies nouns ending with an accented vowel followed by /r/ (biblyotekár ‘librarian’, hotelier ‘hotel keeper’, kasír ‘cashier’, etc.) as well as redaktor (with accent shift -órshe), psikhiáter, dókter, etc.; − -te modifies mainly nouns of Hebrew origin (akshn ‘obstinate person’, evyen ‘pauper’, balebos ‘proprietor’, bal-gayve ‘haughty person’, shutef ‘partner’, soykher ‘merchant’, etc.) but is also found with: eyzl ‘donkey’, hoyker ‘hunchback’, ligner ‘lier’, poyer ‘peasant’, rabiner ‘non-Orthodox rabbi’ (-ke replaces -te after a dental, cf. shoykhetke ‘wife of a ritual slaughterer’, melamedke ‘wife of a heder teacher’). A modification

138. Yiddish

2471

of the stem occurs in porets → pritste ‘landowner’ and keylev → klafte ‘bitch’ (tayvlte ‘devil’ has long been considered as belonging to the Hebrew component as can be seen from its plural tayvlonim or tayvolim and from its obsolete traditional written form with ‫)ת‬. Other Hebrew formations of the feminine have not produced productive paradigms within the Yiddish language system: -e is used in dukse ‘duchess’, goye ‘non-Jewish woman’, ishe ‘woman’, nevie ‘prophetess’; -es in meturefes ‘madwoman’, meyukheses ‘woman of aristocratic descent’, etc. Usually the unclear formation is doubled by -te as in -e-te: goyete, neviete, srorete ‘noblewoman’ or -es-te: magideste ‘woman preacher’, mekhuteneste ‘relation by marriage’, meshumedeste ‘apostate’, etc. Double suffixation also occurs in harinte ‘mistress’ and lejbnte (in addition to the regular leybikhe ‘lioness’). Normal Hebrew feminization is more difficult to analyze in terms of Yiddish wordformation when the base is not commonly used (arure ‘shrew’, aylenes ‘sterile woman’, katlanes ‘threefold widow’, khokhmanes ‘very wise woman’, khoylanes ‘sickly woman’, marshas ‘wicked woman’, pikkhes ‘very intelligent woman’, tsidkones ‘pious woman’, etc.) or when there is a vocalic alternation due to shifting stress (almen ‘widower’ → almone ‘widow’, goresh → grushe ‘divorcee’, etc.) or other modifications of the base. The most productive suffixes appended to agent nouns ending with -er and to internationalisms are -(i)n and -ke, the latter being widespread in the northern part of the historical Yiddish speaking territory (Northern or Litvish Yiddish), as in lererke as opposed to lererin ‘teacher’. Standard Yiddish prefers -(i)n or allows both in most cases but also recommends -ke in hundreds of cases. Rules for the distribution are not clear. Only -(i)n applies to many monosyllables (grikh-(i)n ‘Greek’, held-(i)n ‘hero’, krist(i)n ‘Christian’) and to internationalisms ending -ológ or -gráf (paleontolog-(i)n ‘paleontologist’, geograf-(i)n ‘geographer’). -ke is more common after the suffix -íst. Very limited in scope is -inye (keyserinye ‘empress’, terkinye ‘Turk’). A two degree system of d i m i n u t i v e s (dim1 and dim2) has been abundantly described (as quasi morphological): it uses a liquid suffix -l/-ele, e.g., tish ‘table’ − tishl1 − tishele2 often combined with vocalic change (“Umlaut”: yoykh ‘soup’ − yaykhl1 − yaykhele2). Variants of the suffix appear after -n (epenthetic -d-: beyn ‘bone’ − beyndl1 − beyndele2) and the variant -khl (dialectal also -khn) after -l (koyl ‘sphere’ − kaylkhl1 − kaylkhele2). The syllabic -n is often, but not always, dropped (gortn ‘garden’ − gortndl1/ gertl1 − gertele2). The wide use of diminutive forms has often been listed, but restrictions on their formation have not yet been described satisfactorily because several types of limitations confuse the issue: a) Phonetic restrictions: the stress has to fall on one of the last three syllables, so that only oxytons can have both diminutive forms, paroxytons have only the first (short) one, proparoxytons have none (yidene ‘older Jewish woman’, maline ‘raspberry’) − though there are exceptions (yarmlkele ‘skull cap’). b) Words ending with a vowel only admit of the second diminutive (ku ‘cow’ → kiele, brie ‘creature’ → briele). c) Secondary stress suffices, so that compounds can appear as diminutives. d) Many suffixes preclude diminution: -keyt, -tum, -shaft, -ikhe, -(i)n. This is not the case for -nish (bashefenishl ‘creature’), -er (shnayderl ‘tailor’), -ke (minutkele ‘minute’).

2472

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

e) Phonetic identity with an unrelated existing non-diminutive sometimes precludes diminution, e.g.: tsig ‘goat’ and tsigl ‘tile’ are etymologically unrelated; because of the risk of confusion, the only common diminutive is tsigele ‘little goat’. Similarly kin1 ‘kindling wood’, kin2 ‘chin’ and kind ‘child’ are unrelated; the only widely used diminutives are kindl (from kin1) and kindele ‘small child’. f) Semantic limitations: with collective nouns the diminutive is also singulative (hor − herele ‘hair’; zamd ‘sand’ − zemdele ‘grain of sand’; hirzh − hirzhele ‘millet’) or inexistent (veyts ‘wheat’, mel ‘flour’, kroyt ‘cabbage’). Pluralia tantum tend not to admit of a diminutive (bremen ‘eyebrows, eyelashes’, gehirn ‘brains’). g) Some isolated words, even though monosyllables, are not found in the diminutive (tog ‘day’, nakht ‘night’, shprakh ‘language’, tsayt ‘time’, zin ‘sense’); others never or almost never used in dim1 but do appear in dim2 (bin ‘bee’, pen ‘pen’, shtim ‘voice’, shvan ‘swan’, yor ‘year’, etc.). h) The presence or absence of vocalic alternation (umlaut) in the diminutive is not completely elucidated and there is hesitation in quite a few words (probably where connotations of endearment play an important part (yorele/yerele ‘year’, froshele/ freshele ‘frog’, hozl/hezl ‘hare’, shnobele/shnebele ‘beak’, etc.). Diminutives with the suffix -ke are also quite widespread, though seldom discussed. They are feminine and tend to apply to feminine words ending with -e (and replacing it: lapke ‘paw’, lopetke ‘spade’, zhabke ‘frog’ − add -le for a dim2) as well as to names (feminine: Blumke, Leyke, Sorke, Zlatke, etc.; or masculine: Hershke, Shayke, Shmerke, etc.), but also appear with other words alongside the liquid diminutives (and implying a similar vocalic change: hoyz ‘house’ → hayzl/hayzke). Some other suffixes denoting endearment are used with names or nouns designating persons: − -(e)nyu (tatenyu ‘daddy’, rebenyu ‘rabbi’, gotenyu ‘god’, neshomenyu ‘my soul’, Sorenyu ‘Sarah’, zunenyu ‘son’; exceptionally with other nouns: piskenyu ‘mouth’); − -(e)shi (tateshi ‘daddy’, tokhtershi ‘daughter’, bobeshi ‘grandma’, etc.). A u g m e n t a t i v e s or derogatory variants are formed with suffixes of Slavic origin: − − − −

-tshik (boytshik ‘boy’, yungermantshik ‘young man’); -úk (khazeruk ‘pig’, mamzeruk ‘bastard’, shnayderuk ‘tailor’, shusteruk ‘shoemaker’); -ák/-átsh (yungatsh ‘brat’, ferdak ‘horse, big fool’ = ferdatsh, fem. -atshke); -éts (bokherets ‘wag’).

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Several suffixes could be mentioned, some of them also occurring with a nominal base (as -tum), but the most productive by far is -kayt with an adjective or participle as its base (for the history and generalization of this suffix, as well as the competition between gevoynhayt and gevoyntkayt ‘habit’, cf. Timm 2005; final k − e.g., of suffix -dik − fuses with initial k of the suffix): durkhzeevdikayt ‘transparency’, eydlkayt ‘politeness’, farflamtkayt ‘ruddiness’, frumkayt ‘piety’, heylikayt ‘sanctity’, gefalnkayt ‘despondency’, krankayt ‘illness’, opgezundertkayt ‘separateness’. The suffix -shaft (mainly for noun

138. Yiddish

2473

bases) yields marked variants: farlibtshaft ‘infatuation’, klugshaft ‘cleverness’ and some derivation from Hebrew bases of doubtful status: kroyvishaft ‘kinship’ (korev ‘relative’, pl. kroyvim, adj. kroyvish), shkheynishaft ‘proximity’ (shokhn ‘neighbor’, pl. shkheynim, adj. shkheynish), etc. The -ish adjective is built on the plural stem, which makes the word resemble a derivation from the plural of the noun (/sh/ belonging to the suffix); in some cases orthographical hesitation points to the second possibility, cf. gviri(m)shaft ‘the wealthy’ (← gvir ‘rich man’, pl. gvirim, adj. gvirish), neziri(m)shaft ‘seclusion’ (nozir ‘hermit’, pl. nezirim, adj. nezirish). Combined with Hebrew adjectives -kayt appears instead of less transparent nouns formed according to the rules of the source language, e.g., poshetkayt and even pashtesdikayt alongside pashtes ‘simplicity’. Worth mentioning are derivations from numerals: -(s)tl forming partitive nouns (zekstl ‘sixth part’) and -en for groups: in tsveyen/drayen ‘… of two/three’, etc.

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns Deverbal nouns designate: a) agent nouns with the suffix -er (lakher ‘laugher’, davner ‘praying man’, oyframer ‘cleaning man’, shpringer ‘grasshopper’, etc.); b) instrument nouns with the suffix -er (hilkher ‘loudspeaker’, frirer ‘freezer’, etc.); c) action nouns with the suffix -ung or -(e)nish (tuung ‘action’, oyspruvung ‘test’, etc. and shtupenish ‘jostling’, vaklenish ‘wavering’). The latter suffix can especially be found with verbs whose stem ends with an unstressed /e/; d) action nouns, mostly for (prolonged) sound emission with prefix ge- and suffix -eray combined or not (without clear nuance or rule of distribution): geamper/geamperay ‘wrangling’, (ge)bileray ‘barking’, (ge)fayferay ‘whistling’, (ge)klingeray ‘ringing’, (ge)krig(eray) ‘quarrel’, (ge)shorkh(eray) ‘rustling’, etc.; e) result nouns (often with a pejorative connotation) with the suffix -ekhts (raybekhts ‘scrapings’, shraybekhts ‘scribblings’).

4.2. Adjectival derivation Slavic influence is probably the main reason for the very active adjective formation in Yiddish, though only few suffixes of Slavic origin account for these adjectives (-evate, -ne). The most productive suffixes are of German origin (-ish, -(d)ik, -lekh).

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives The following suffixes are used: -evate (often pejorative), ‘similar to a’ (N/A). Examples from Slavic: drilevate ‘gelatinous’, hikevate ‘stuttering’, trantevate ‘dowdy’, lobusevate ‘mischievous’, koltenevate ‘with tangled hair’, kudl(ev)ate ‘hairy’, shmatevate ‘shabby’, etc. Examples from Hebrew: beheymevate ‘bovine’, khoylevate ‘sickly’, khazerevate ‘piggish’, shoytevate ‘stu-

2474

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

pid’, tamevate ‘foolish’, etc. Examples from German: holtsevate ‘wooden’, shvantsevate ‘bloody stupid’, etc. -ne is present in many Slavic loan adjectives (ahulne ‘wholesale’, apetitne ‘appetizing’, azhurne ‘openwork’, bidne ‘wretched’, brudne ‘filthy’, kazyone ‘governmental’, khmarne/khmurne ‘gloomy’, mizerne ‘puny’, modne ‘strange’, mutne ‘muddy’, nudne ‘boring’, paskudne ‘disgusting’, smutne ‘morose’, (s)pritne ‘vivacious’, shtaltne/ stat(etsh)ne ‘stately’, tshudne ‘bizarre’, zapasne ‘reserve’, zgrabne ‘dexterous’, zhedne ‘avid’ and many others. It also occasionally appears in international loans oval(ne), solid(ne) and in some words tends to be replaced by -ik (brudik, khmarik, shtaltik, zapasik). In most inflected forms it sounds like the Germanic suffix -n for materials; in Slavic derived material adjectives, it is practically undistinguishable (lipene ‘of linden’, nakladne ‘plated’, sitne ‘sifted flour’, tukene ‘beef fat’) and has even attached to some Germanic stems (bavlne ‘cotton’, milkhne ‘soft roe’). This has contributed to extend this suffix beyond the Slavic component: in (ge)shpetne ‘miserable’ popular etymology has conflated two components (cf. Polish szpetny and German Gespött) and some German derived adjectives are not derived from a “material” in any usual sense, as the localism punktinorne ‘precise’ and the literary elipsene ‘elliptic’ or fidlne ‘as a violin’ (Sutzkever) illustrate. For a more thorough treatment, see Neuberg (2014). -(d)ik is the most productive suffix. After a dental both variants are indistinguishable, the written form is -ik; otherwise -ik applies to stressed end syllables, even with secondary stress and shortened words (when -n or -(y)e is deleted). -dik is appended when the base word ends with an unstressed syllable; with the final unstressed -er there are several double forms, e.g., lekher(d)ik ‘perforated’, etc. In ontseyn(erd)ik ‘toothless’ and similar formations, on-…-(d)ik is used as a substitute for daytshmerish (‘(exaggeratedly) Germanizing’) -loz ‘rid of’; it is not a circumfix but a suffixation of the group on tseyn ‘without teeth’. -(i)sh is mostly used with international words and nouns referring to persons and animals. The variant -sh is used after syllabic [l] and occasionally after the ending -er. -lekh alternates with -ish in some cases; it also has a specific meaning combined with names of units of time: ‘once a …’ (khoydeshlekh ‘monthly’, teglekh ‘daily’, vekhntlekh ‘weekly’, yerlekh ‘yearly’). ba-…-t is productive, mainly meaning ‘supplied with (some removable attribute)’ but also in the wider sense of ‘exhibiting, being characterized by’, without the implied verb being in common use or even attested (baberdlt ‘bearded’, babrilt ‘spectacled’, bashtraymlt ‘wearing a shtrayml, a fur hat’). The analogic model, apart from similar foreign words (cf. English bespectacled, German bebrillt) which certainly play a role, especially as far as the most common of these words are concerned, may be found in common participles of preexisting verbs (e.g., baflekt ‘sullied’, bafraynd(e)t ‘friendly’, bakleydt ‘dressed’), even in cases where the verb is uncommon or has fallen into disuse (e.g., bahartst ‘bold’, barut ‘serene’, batogt ‘elderly’). Fairly common adjectives of this type are: bafedert ‘feathered’, baglozt ‘glazed’, bakroynt ‘crowned’, balorbert ‘laureled’, batrert ‘in tears’, bavaybt ‘married (man)’, bavolknt ‘cloudy’, bayor(n)t ‘advanced in years’; and with a Hebraic base: bakheynt ‘charming’, batamt ‘tasty’. Other attested though not lexicalized examples, e.g., drawn from poetical texts, are readily understood: babremt ‘eyebrowed’, bashnoblt ‘beaked’, bagleklt ‘decked with bells’, baneglt ‘with nails’, baregnt ‘rainy’, baringt ‘ringed’, baspodikt ‘wearing a spodik (high hat)’, batshuprinet ‘shock headed’, bavontset ‘mustachioed’, and with a Hebraic base: bakvorimt

138. Yiddish

2475

‘with graves’, balevonet ‘moonlit’, basimkhet ‘cheerful’, batseylemt ‘with crosses’. As seen from these examples, the base can be a plural or diminutive (and belong to any component). In some cases the suffix -ik is added to avoid ambiguity, mostly because the base ends in a dental (baberdikt ‘bearded’, bablutikt ‘bloodstained’, batoyikt ‘dewy’, bavaldikt ‘tree-covered’), so that the resulting word seems to be derived from an adjective. Adjectives derived from proper names use: a) the suffix -er appended to geographical names such as town and country names. These ethnic derivatives (vilner ‘of Vilnius’, voliner ‘of Volhynia’) are interpreted as indeclinable adjectives. b) the suffix -ish is usually preferred with animate nouns and names of individuals (frugish (← S. Frug), mopasanish (← G. de Maupassant), shagalish (← M. Chagall), etc.). This is a very productive type except for names ending with /sh/, e.g., in sholemashik (← Sholem Asch).

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Disregarding the formation of the comparative and superlative which are usually described as part of inflection, the derivation of adjectives from other adjectives implies negation, approximation or diminution (with transitional zones between the three). N e g a t i o n is effected by the prefixes úm- and nít- (both bearing the main stress), both of which can also modify nouns, so that occasionally two interpretations of the derivative are possible (cf. umakhrayesdik ‘irresponsible’, umgliklekh ‘unhappy’, umzinik ‘senseless’, etc.), though derivation from the adjective is usually more plausible (the noun often even looking like a backformation), on semantic and on structural grounds: even limited dictionaries tending to avoid transparent derivatives encompass hundreds of such adjectives, while the nouns are far less numerous; besides, some adjectives which are unknown without the negative prefix are not formed from a negative noun either (umbaholfn ‘clumsy’, umgelumpert ‘awkward’, umoyfherlekh ‘incessant’). The prefix nít- is also wide-spread, but mainly used when um- is blocked or idiomatized. The status as a word is often doubtful (depending on the evaluation of stress or hyphenation), and the interpretation as conversion of a word group almost always possible. In spite of this, two specific series are noticeable: nit- combined with a past participle with the perfective preverb der- implies ‘incompleteness’: nit-derbakn ‘incompletely baked’, nit-derendikt ‘incomplete’, nit-dergangen ‘unfinished, failed’, nit-dershpayzt ‘underfed’, nit-derzogt ‘implied’. nit- combined with other past participles is mostly used to mean ‘not (yet) having been’: nit-gebetenerheyt ‘unbidden’, nit-gedakht ‘unmentioned’, nit-gedavnt ‘not having prayed’, nit-gefregterheyt ‘unasked’. Another type of negation is effected by psevdo- or kmoy- ‘pseudo-’ mainly in technical or scientific prose (kmoy-visnshaftlekh/psevdo-visnshaftlekh ‘pseudoscientific’, kmoypasiv ‘pseudo-passive’), both also found with nouns. A p p r o x i m a t i o n of an adjective can be effected by -ik or -lekh (blekh after [l] as in foylblekh ‘lazy’, fulblekh ‘full’, gelblekh ‘yellowish’). The most productive is -lekh (altlekh ‘oldish’, beyzlekh ‘gruff’ ← beyz ‘angry’, breytlekh ‘rather wide’, broygezlekh ‘disgruntled’, broynlekh ‘brown’, fetlekh ‘fat’, etc.),

2476

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

sometimes with a changed vocalism: greblekh (← grob ‘thick’), krenklekh (← krank ‘sick’), lenglekh (← lang ‘long’), tsertlekh (← tsart ‘tender’). Reyntlekh (← reyn ‘clean’) is abnormal; kleynlekh ‘petty’, liblekh ‘affable’, yidishlekh ‘traditionally Jewish’ have idiomatized meanings. -(d)ik is much less productive but yields begilufndik ‘tipsy’, shtumpik ‘dull’, tempik ‘obtuse’, zanftik ‘soft’, etc. and the alternating -loz(ik) and -haft(ik), though, as in some previous cases, no difference of meaning is discernible. D i m i n u t i o n , in contrast to approximation, imbues the adjective with a connotation of familiarity or fondness. This is effected by the suffixes -ink, -itshk and -tshi(n)k (all of them of Slavic origin). -ink is the most productive (altink ‘elderly’, groysink ‘biggish’, dinink ‘thin’, shtilink ‘quiet’, shmolink ‘narrow’, shvakhink ‘weak’, tayerink ‘dear’, yungink ‘young’, etc.), even with adjectives of colour (blo(y)ink ‘blue’, grinink ‘green’, klorink ‘fair’, roytink ‘red’, vaysink ‘white’).

4.2.3 Denumeral adjectives Numeral adjectives admit specific derivatives: -(s)t gives rise to ordinal adjectives: tsvey-t ‘second’, tsen-t ‘tenth’, tsvantsik-st ‘twentieth’, hundert-st ‘hundredth’, etc. An inner modification occurs in drit ‘third’ (← dray), fert ‘fourth’ (← fir), fi(n)ft ‘fifth’ (← finf), zibet ‘seventh’ (← zibn), exceptional is ersht ‘first’. -ns added to the ordinal adjective forms an adverb: ershtns ‘firstly’, tveytns ‘secondly’, dritns ‘thirdly’, etc. -erley forms ‘type-number’ adjectives: tsvey-erley ‘two kinds of’, eynerley ‘one (and the same) sort of’, drayerley ‘three kinds’, firerley ‘four …’, toyznterley ‘thousand …’, etc., as well as alerley/kolerley ‘all kinds of’, beyderley ‘both kinds’, keynerley ‘none at all’, farsheydenerley ‘different kinds of’, asakherley ‘many kinds of’ and (the rarer) mererley ‘several kinds of’, andererley/nokherley ‘other sorts of’; -er after decimals ending in -ik forms invariant adjectives in di tsvantsik-er/draysiker, etc., yorn ‘the twenties/thirties’, etc. -e elicits time adverbs: ‘at/about x o’clock’ (tsveye, draye, etc.).

4.2.4. Deadverbial adjectives When the base is an adverb, suffixation effects a categorial change as in doik ‘of this place’ (← do ‘here’), dortik ‘of that place’ (← dort ‘there’), hayntik ‘today’s’, nekhtik ‘yesterday’s’, bargaroyfik ‘ascending’, etc., and the comparative shpeterdik ‘later’.

4.2.5. Deverbal adjectives -ik is used (especially in literary usage) as an alternative to the present participle form -ndik, e.g., shvaygik ‘silent’ instead of shvaygndik ‘(being) silent’.

138. Yiddish

2477

-bar is a modern Germanism present in a number of loanwords and has produced some new adjectives. Mark (1978) admits only dankbar ‘grateful’, gangbar ‘current’ and ummitlbar ‘immediate’ but many more have been used and defended by some writers (cf. Shtif 1928a, 1928b). Its popular synonym -lekh is favored by normativists; the difference with -ik is often slight, but the variant -evdik is more explicit (it seems to combine only with verbs except for kheynevdik ‘cute’ ← kheyn ‘charm, grace’); -edik forms adjectives characterizing an inherent quality. -zam is another unproductive suffix present in a few loanwords and mostly deemed daytshmerish (‘typical of heavily Germanized Yiddish’).

4.3. Verbal derivation As in English and German, Yiddish has a group of polyvalent verbs which can be combined with elements (prefixes or particles historically deriving from prepositions) giving rise to a wealth of more precise verbs. The core verbs used in this way are not the same in all three languages. Specific to Yiddish is the wide usage of yogn ‘to chase, move quickly’ and shparn ‘to push’ along with the unsurprising gebn, ton ‘to give’, ‘to do’ among others and the almost complete absence of cognates of German holen ‘to fetch’ or sprechen ‘to speak’. The prefixes or particles can also be combined with semantically heavier verbs, to express a specific meaning. Under the influence of Slavic languages, especially Polish, some of the prefixes have acquired a potential for expressing quasi aspectual variants of meaning (see article 35 on particle verbs in Germanic and article 86 on verbal prefixation in Slavic: a minimalist approach).

4.3.1. Denominal verbs Loan verbs often present -(iz)ir-, cf. planirn ‘to plan’, adresirn ‘to address’, detal(iz)irn ‘to detail’, simbol(iz)irn ‘to symbolize’, peryodizirn ‘to divide into periods’; but more productive is the element -eve- (of Slavic origin), which is added to nouns and to adjectives (shedeven ‘to act like a demon’, vildeven ‘to act wild’), cf. Green (2008). Verbs derived from onomatopoetic words use -ke- (beken ‘to bleat’, kraken ‘to croak’, myauken ‘to meow’, meken ‘to bleat’, muken ‘to moo’, nuken ‘to say nu repeatedly’, oyken ‘to say oy (often)’, etc.), which is not limited to sound words with vocalic endings (havken ‘to bark’, tshamken ‘to smack (lips)’, tyokhken ‘to throb’, etc.). Some older, more or less onomatopoetic verbs (regardless of their history) with -ts- (bleke[kh]tsn ‘to chant unintelligibly’, greptsn ‘to belch’, hikhtsn, krekhtsn ‘to moan’, shlukertsn ‘to hiccup’, shlukhtsn ‘to sob’, yokhtsn ‘to cheer’, ziftsn ‘to sigh’) do not yield a productive pattern (cf. section 5).

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Prefixes yielding verbs from adjectives are also commonly found with other bases. Of the previously mentioned -(iz)ir-, combining with foreignisms, the longer form occurs

2478

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

with adjectives (generalizirn ‘to generalize’, imunizirn ‘to immunize’, modernizirn ‘to modernize’). The most productive prefix is far- (farblotikn ‘to muddy’, fareydlen ‘to refine’, fareynfakhn ‘to simplify’, farumverdikn ‘to desecrate’) − also from comparatives (farbesern ‘to improve’ ← beser ‘better’, fargikhern ‘to accelerate’ ← gikher ‘quicker’, fargringern ‘to make easier’, farposhetern ‘to simplify’). When the adjective in -ik is not in use (e.g., umreynik; farumreynikn ‘to defile’ ← umreyn ‘unclean’), it seems preferable to speak of a circumfix far-…-iken. It is sometimes difficult to decide whether the base is an adjective or a verb (farbitern ‘to embitter’, farblutikn ‘to bloody’). Less common is ba- (baheln ‘to illuminate’, baumruikn ‘to alarm’).

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs The separable particles have become equated to Slavic (Polish) verb prefixes and preverbs so that their semantic import has been modified or enriched, giving rise to various semantic or quasi aspectual nuances, especially forming pairs where the prefixed verb is the perfective counterpart of the non-prefixed form. Prefixed perfective verbs are formed with ayn- (ayneyln ‘to oil’, aynmidn ‘to tire’, aynpeklen ‘to pickle’, aynkritsn ‘to engrave’, etc.), op- (opbrotn ‘to roast’, opkalkhn ‘to whitewash’, opgleyzn ‘to glaze’, opmekn ‘to erase’, etc.), oys- (oysbrukirn ‘to pave’, oyskamen ‘to comb’, oyskritsn ‘to engrave’, oyspatshn ‘to slap (on the face)’, etc.), and the (inseparable) prefix far- (farbarikadirn ‘to barricade’, farkamen ‘to comb’, farlaten ‘to patch’, farshiltn ‘to curse’, farstrigeven ‘to baste (in sewing)’, etc.). They are formed less frequently with iber- (iberleyenen ‘to read’, ibershvenken ‘to rinse’), oyf- (oyfefenen ‘to open’, oyfneyen ‘to sew’), unter- (unterburtshen ‘to grumble’, unterkhasmenen ‘to sign’), on- (onpatshn ‘to slap’, onsilyen ‘to string (on a thread)’, onpudern ‘to powder’, onsheltn ‘to curse’, onstroyen ‘to tune’, onzeygn ‘to nurse’, etc.), tsu- (tsukamen ‘to comb’, tsuklepn ‘to glue’, tsushtriklen ‘to tether’), or the inseparable tse- (tsepatshn ‘to slap’, tseshmaysn ‘to whip’, tseshmeltsn ‘to melt’, tseviren ‘to rule, line’). The Polish influence on prefixed verbs (even though both their parts are of German origin) was first described by Landau (1928); the systematic effects and status have been discussed in several articles, without clear results. From the examples above, it is clear that several verbs have more than one prefixed perfective variant. The choice of the prefix is partly determined by analogy and by the primary meaning of the prefix, which explains differences in productivity. There are nuances between differently prefixed verbs roughly described as “perfective”, cf. esn ‘to eat’ → opesn ‘to complete one’s meal’, oyfesn ‘to eat up, eat the lot’, (nit) deresn ‘(not) to eat one’s fill’. Some verbs do not appear in lexicographical works without a particle (coverb). When they do appear in literary texts, various possibilities must be considered: poetic backformation (e.g., ringlen ← arumringlen ‘to encircle’), or a rarer imperfective variant. Some German particles can be either separable or not. When such a prefixed verb is used in Yiddish, the modern norm prescribes its being separable (ibertraybn, er traybt iber, ibergetribn ‘to exaggerate’; iberzetsn, er zetst iber, ibergezetst ‘to translate’), though the usage fluctuates.

138. Yiddish

2479

Apart from the appearance of aspectual tendencies, Yiddish coverbs (separable particles) are similar to their counterparts in other Germanic languages. Examples of further productive series (all resulting in specialized or idiomatized usages and analogies) are: − − − − − − −

aher- ‘towards the speaker’: aherkumen ‘to come, approach’; ahin- ‘as far as (the place mentioned)’: ahinkumen ‘to get there’; ahinter- ‘backwards’: ahinterloyfn ‘to run back’; aroyf- ‘upwards’: aroyfloyfn ‘to run up’; avek- ‘away’: avekloyfn ‘to run away’ or ‘continuously’ avekzingen ‘to sing’; foroys- ‘forward’: foroystraybn ‘to drive on’; iber- ‘again’: iberfarbn ‘to repaint’, or ‘overdoing it’: iberzaltsn ‘to put too much salt in’ or ‘through’: ibershvimen ‘to swim across’; − nokh- ‘following’: nokhhipn ‘to hop after’, or ‘imitating’: nokhdertseyln ‘to retell’; − unter- ‘a little, weakly’: untershpringen ‘to hop’, or ‘sporadically’: unterfardinen ‘to earn some money’.

A complete list of the coverbs should also include afer ‘out’, anider ‘downward’, antkegn ‘facing/counter’, arayn ‘inward’, ariber ‘over: across/exceedingly’, arop ‘downward/removing’, aroys ‘out’, arum ‘around’, arunter ‘downward’, ayn ‘in/beginning’, bay (unproductive), (a)durkh ‘through/across/thoroughly’, fanander ‘apart’, farbay ‘past’, fir ‘fore’, kapoyer ‘upside down/upwards’, mit ‘accompanying’, on ‘accumulating/perfecting’, op ‘away/back/finishing’, oyf ‘up’, oys ‘completely’, um ‘around/down’, tsu ‘to: adding/nearing/closing’, tsuzamen/tsunoyf ‘together’, tsurik ‘back’ and their variants. Both aheym ‘home’ and vider ‘again’ are disputable cases. The relationship within the pairs (ar)iber, (ar)op, (ar)oys, etc. are complex, but the longer form tends to specialize in the local (the shorter one in a more abstract) meaning. Among the (inseparable) verb prefixes ant-, ba-, der-, far-, ge-, tse-, the latter is especially productive in combination with a verb denoting expression and the reflexive zikh: as in lakhn ‘to laugh’/tselakhn zikh ‘to burst out laughing’; cf. tsefinklen ‘to start sparkling’, tsegregern ‘… rattling’, tsehirzhen ‘… neighing’, tsekraken ‘… croaking’, tsekreyen ‘… crowing (rooster)’, tseshmuesn ‘… discussing’, tseshtamlen ‘… stammering’, tseshtraln ‘… beaming’, tsezhumen ‘… humming’, etc., zikh. A diminutive variant of verbs can be formed with the suffix -ink (shlof → shlofinken ‘to slumber’) but examples are not numerous.

4.4. Adverbial derivation The main suffixes for adverbial derivation are -vayz (with noun base) and -erheyt (with adjective base). There are also suffixes deriving temporal adverbs: -leb and -tsayt. Slavic inflected nouns used as adverbs (ahulom ‘blanket’, bokom/bokem ‘amiss’, dibom/dibem ‘on its hind legs’, hendum-pendum/hendem-pendem ‘at full speed’, hurtom ‘wholesale’, etc.) should be treated as unanalyzable loanwords, though their [m]-ending becomes a recognizable adverbial marker − as are -(n)s and -(r)t-(n) in adverbs of German origin. Hebrew proclitic prepositions ba-/be-/bi-, ka-/ke-/ki-, la-/le- have also given rise to series of adverbs where they are comparable to prefixes. The suffix -vayz creates adverbs from nouns in two ways:

2480

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

a) with singular nouns referring to the (younger) ages of man, it means ‘while a …, (still) being a …’ as in bokhervayz ‘as/when a young man’, dervakslingvayz ‘as a teenager’, eyflvayz ‘as a baby’, kalevayz ‘as a bride’, kindvayz ‘as a child’, meydlvayz ‘as a girl’, moydvayz, yinglvayz ‘as a boy’, also kleynvayz ‘when small’. This type of -vayz- adverb is not productive, because the list of candidate words is practically exhausted (designations of the aged like zokn, zkeyne ‘old (wo)man’ are not admissible), but see Mendele’s balebeslvayz ‘when a newly wed (man)’. b) with plural nouns (characterizing groups or form) it means ‘in …, by …’. Here the examples are more varied and productivity more pronounced: bislekhvayz ‘little by little’, fleshervayz/fleshlekhvayz ‘in bottles’, hoyfnvayz ‘by the handful’, khoptesvayz/ kompanyesvayz ‘in groups’, kupkesvayz ‘in heaps’, makhnesvayz ‘in groups’, masnvayz ‘in masses’, minutnvayz ‘by the minute’, mishpokhesvayz ‘by families’, shoenvayz ‘by the hour’, shtikervayz/shtiklekhvayz ‘bit by bit’, shuresvayz ‘by rows’, snopesvayz ‘in sheaves’, tshatesvayz ‘in groups’, etc. More or less exceptional in various respects (but not belonging to other productive models) are: eyntsikvayz ‘one by one’, ertervayz ‘here and there’, porvayz ‘in pairs’, shtufnvayz ‘in stages’, teylvayz ‘partly’, tsaytnvayz ‘from time to time’, tsherevayz ‘in turns’. An exception is the very common meshugenervayz ‘like mad’, where -ervayz belongs to the type deriving from adjectives productive in modern German but not in Yiddish, though some authors influenced by German have used some more of these (e.g., A. Almi: neytikervayz ‘necessarily’, natirlekhervayz ‘naturally’). The main way to form an adverb out of an adjective is conversion (see section 5) but the very common suffix -erheyt also has this effect with (mainly root) adjectives and participles, especially when characterizing the state of the animate subject of the sentence. Only a few dozen are found in Yiddish dictionaries (blinderheyt ‘blindly’, gezunterheyt ‘in good health’, kleynerheyt ‘when (still) small’, royerheyt ‘raw’, shikererheyt ‘while drunk’, shtil(ink)erheyt ‘very quietly’, tsezetsterheyt ‘ad nauseam’, umgerikhterheyt ‘unexpectedly’, yungerheyt ‘while young’, etc.). However, in practice, such adverbs are very numerous and the type is highly productive. Restrictions do not seem to be absolute except for the incompatibility with -lekh. Temporal adverbs with the suffix -leb are limited to vinterleb and zumerleb ‘in winter/ summer’. The suffix -tsayt is more common not only with names of seasons frilingtsayt, vesnetsayt ‘in spring’, harbsttsayt, osyentsayt ‘in autumn’, vintertsayt ‘in winter’, zumertsayt ‘in summer’, etc. (here again conversion of the nouns is also normal) but with every designation of a period or its characteristics. The analysis as a suffix rather than as the conversion of a compound with tsayt ‘time’, which must be the way the suffix came into being, takes into account that these adverbs are much more common than the supposed noun, which would in many cases be a theoretical construct (khanike-tsayt ‘during Hanukkah’, mitogtsayt ‘at noon’, ovnttsayt ‘in the evening’, slikhes-tsayt ‘when the prayers of repentance are spoken, in the month of Elul’, tsholnttsayt ‘at lunchtime on the Sabbath’, etc.). Many real compounds with -tsayt, however, do exist.

5. Conversion The “semelfactive” aspect (cf. Schächter 1951) is a conjugation paradigm using an auxiliary verb (ton ‘to do’, gebn ‘to give’ or more rarely khapn ‘to catch’, derlangen ‘to

138. Yiddish

2481

pass’) and a verbal stem as quasi-noun. This, together with a number of preexisting nouns that are identical to verbal stems, has favored expansion and establishment of many more such deverbal (masc.) nouns − though admittedly separable particles appear as the first element of the noun and in the semelfactive aspect the order would be reversed (ikh tu a shtel anider ‘I put down; lit. I do a put down’ but der anidershtel ‘the putting down’). Such nouns have partly come to substitute action nouns with -ung, sometimes on the base of an individual normative decision linked to rejection of the suffix, as in the prose of Dov Sadan: bamerk ‘remark’, batsi ‘connection’, untershrayb ‘signature’, dermon ‘memory’, derkler ‘explanation’, farentfer ‘justification’, etc. These (masculine) products of the conversion of verbal stems coexist with infinitives used as (neutral) nouns. Less prolific is the use of “in der + adj.” (in der breyt ‘breadthwise’/fintster ‘in the dark’/gikh ‘in haste’/krum ‘crosswise‘/likhtik ‘in the light’/shtil ‘quietly’/tif ‘in depth’, etc., functioning as adverbs) converting the adjectives into feminine nouns, some of which have entered other constructions. Adjectives can generally be used as adverbs and the reverse conversion sometimes happens with adverbs formed from a noun with a proclitic (Hebrew) preposition, which come to follow the Yiddish declension of adjectives (sometimes dropping the adverbial marking) as in bekoved-er ‘honorable’, loshn-koydesh-er ‘from Hebrew’, shutfes-er ‘joint’. Nouns can be converted to verbs taking normal conjugation endings (though the way the conversion worked is not always easy to determine). A small group of verbs are converted from a triliteral Hebrew root (the first consonant followed by [a]): ganven ‘steal’, gazlen ‘plunder’, hargen ‘murder’, khanfen ‘flatter’, khasmen ‘sign’, masern ‘denounce’, yarshn ‘inherit’, etc., as well as mekn ‘erase’ and shekhtn ‘slaughter’ in spite of their exceptional vowel. These old and frequent verbs also combine with prefixes and particles (cf. section 4.3.3). Though this type does not seem to be productive any more, it also includes substandard verbs seldom found in texts (kasven ‘to scribble’, shabern ‘to break in’, tsakhken ‘to play, gamble’, etc.), which show that either the productivity has endured in thieves’ cant and other cryptic varieties of the language, or that such verbs have had a long oral existence before they were collected in special vocabularies or gained more general usage. The latter seems quite possible and one such verb that seems poorly attested in old texts, though it is perfectly acceptable today is sarfen ‘to burn’, while the rare kasven ‘to write’ is attested (in an intercepted secret letter) as early as 1478. These verbs should not be equated with denominal verbs converted from a noun of Hebrew origin (knasn ‘to fine’, shadkhenen ‘to (attempt to) match’, yontevn ‘to celebrate’ and the like).

6. Backformation Backformation bears an exceptional character, and so it does not yield long series, but it has contributed to the Yiddish vocabulary. New singular forms have appeared through the dropping of the Hebrew plural ending while retaining the modified form of the stem as in the historical plural, thus: shem ‘(holy) name’ → sheymes (pl.) → new singular sheyme ‘scrap of paper (possibly bearing

2482

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

a holy name)’. Similarly sheygets ‘non Jewish boy/brat’ → shkotsim → shkots. This type of backformation is still rarer in non-Hebrew words: gildoyn ‘coin’, though ultimately of German origin, has been hebraized in synagogal usage and this new singular is limited to such use. Other final syllables are reinterpreted as suffixes when the etymologically Hebrew word mefunek becomes feminized as mefunitse ‘fastidious woman’ (equating the last syllable of the Hebrew word with suffix -nik), or when the biblical name Rivke ‘Rebecca’ acquires a variant Rive (as if -ke was an endearing suffix). For theses suffixes, cf. section 4.1.1. Backformation is also the most plausible explanation when: − the vocalism of the infinitive has been aligned with the past participle as in yoyrn ‘to ferment’, geboyrn ‘to give birth’ − after the fashion of (ge)shtoysn ‘to push’; − verbs with a stem ending /-st/ have lost the /t/ which had been reanalyzed as (part of) the ending of the 2nd and 3rd person singular in the present tense (hisn ‘to cough’, rasn ‘to stop, rest’). This is rare without the /s/, when only the 3rd person singular allows reinterpreting the /t/ as an ending (cf. shtifn ‘to play pranks’); − the “double infinitive” is a means of emphasizing the main verb by beginning the sentence with an infinitive immediately echoed by the finite form of the verb. When the verb is irregular so that the usual infinitive would not yield the proper echo, a pseudo-infinitive is used: binen bin ikh … ‘I am’; izn iz er … ‘he is’; veysn veys ikh … ‘I do know’. The list of potential candidates for such a backformed infinitive is short.

7. Reduplication Perhaps because of Yiddish being a latecomer to normative influence, and this in relative independence of Greco-Latin models, duplication seems to play a more prominent role in written Yiddish than in most European literatures. That these duplicate forms are thought of as one word (not as a mere repetition) is shown by hyphenation. Beyond onomatopoetic words, common in other languages, for example, imitating crying animals: hav-hav ‘dog’, holder-holder ‘turkey’, kva-kva ‘duck’ or ‘frog’, etc., reduplication also serves a similar function in describing the recurrence of a word or topic in heated conversations. Duplication of adjectives or adverbs is a mark of intensity: gikh-gikh ‘quick’, shtark-shtark ‘strong’, vayt-vayt ‘far’, zeltn-zeltn ‘seldom’. Some of these are quite common, though seldom listed in dictionaries where, for lack of space, transparent words are often omitted. The same phenomenon applies to other word categories, especially with verbs: kukn-kukn ‘look’, loyft-loyft ‘runs’, misht-misht ‘leaves through’. A qualified reduplication (with infix) occurs in other very productive patterns, either for emphasis: … -shebe … with nouns (mayster-shebemayster ‘master’, vunder-shebevunder ‘miracle’), the second instance occasionally pluralized (kal-shebekalim ‘libertine’, kelev-shebeklovim ‘scoundrel’), and adjectives (prime-shebeprime ‘first rate’, shtreng-shebeshtreng ‘severe’); or disparaging, with nouns (replacing eventual initial consonants): … -shm … with nouns (gold-shmold ‘gold’, kidnep-shmidnep ‘kidnapping’, leydn-shmeydn ‘sorrows’, talant-shmalant ‘talent’, tfiles-shmiles ‘prayers’) and usually

138. Yiddish

2483

as a vocative (especially in children’s speech) … -kap … (fiksl-kapiksl ‘fox’, hozl-kapozl ‘bunny’). Within the Hebrew component, emphatic words are formed by joining two variants of the same root as in pile-ploim ‘marvels’, litse-letsones ‘raillery’, tsores-tsures ‘calamity’, koyle-koyles ‘bellowing’ or in the adjective khorev-venekhrev ‘in ruins’. Birnbaum drew attention to this category already in 1922.

8. Blending Blendings do not belong to any of the previous categories (see article 21 on blending); part of one or both words fusing into a blending is usually deleted so that the effect is witty and seldom lexicalized. For these reasons, the occurrence of blendings very much depends on the type of text and author − and almost no examples are to be found in dictionaries. In spite of this, some folk etymologies can be interpreted as blendings. Sadan (1971) mentions the popular (ontretn oyf di) honer-oygn (hiner-oygn + honer/ honor) ‘tread on someone’s (honor)corns’. The most striking examples are nonce-words created for the purpose of specific, usually poetic or satiric, texts. In “Rabtshik”, the famed Sholem-Aleykhem tells a story from the point of view of the eponymous dog. Rabtshik mentions a hintnfraynd which is recognizably a blending of mentshnfraynd (‘philanthropist’) and hunt (‘dog’, pl. hint), though it looks like a normal compound and hintlekhkayt, which is an obvious blending with mentshlekhkayt ‘humaneness’ since the adjective hintlekh is not in use. M. Nadir uses (in “Fun mentsh tsu mentsh”) shriftshtelung (from the pseudo-verb shriftshteln backformed from shriftshteler ‘writer’ and shtelung ‘position’, derived from shteln ‘to place’) and shlakhtgertner (blending shlakhtfeld ‘battlefield’ and gortn ‘garden’ − pl. gertner). Y. Glatshteyn uses nibl-pen, blending nibl-pe ‘obscenity; lit. dirt-mouth’ and pen ‘pen’ as well as retrospektabilitet ‘retrospectability’, melodeklamatsye ‘melodeclamation’ and many others. H. Binyomin (B. Harshav), in his poem “Lange verter” declines the pseudoadjective zikorene (felder), interpreting the /n/ of zikorn ‘memory’ as the adjective suffix, so that korn ‘rye’ blends into it, especially because of the phonetic spelling used. The title of another of his poems, “Akshonet”, is a blending of akshones ‘obstinacy’ with sonet ‘sonnet’ (with mixed spelling). A. Sutzkever coined vaystsaplen, combining shvartsapl ‘pupil of the eye’ (shvarts meaning ‘black’), vays ‘white’ and tsaplen ‘to vibrate’ and he mentions (in “Mayn bobes loshn”) his grandmother’s malapropisms such as sofokles ‘Sophocles’ for sof-kl-sof ‘at last’ or royal ‘grand piano’ for role ‘role’ (where the blending is not intentional and emerges in the ear of the listener). Another category of words is the so-called shpet-loshn (“mocking language”, Prilutski 1924) that can be identified as a type of blending. These are deformed word variants used by way of derision; the deformation either uses pseudo-affixes or existing words with a similar phonic structure (any or all of the syllables being equated to those of the other word), though the meaning of the word being mixed into the first one plays no role beyond being unrelated (and unflattering). Such mock-words are lexicalized in the hundreds; the following selection illustrates the main (sub-)types (cf. also French mirlitaire ‘soldier(s)’ or German Purzeltag ‘birthday’):

2484

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

a) a phonetically similar word with widely different meaning replaces the unmarked one: bizyoynes ‘indignities’ for biznes ‘business’, gelender (instead of gelekhter ‘laughter’), etc.; b) one of the base words of a complex word is exchanged for a phonetically comparable but semantically unexpected one: shlof-mitsl ‘sleeping cap’ for shlofmitl ‘sleeping pill’, olev-hashnobl for olev-hasholem ‘may he rest in peace’ (with shnobl ‘beak’), etc.; c) an existing suffix is used incongruously: Ameritshke for Amerike ‘America’, etc.; d) a pseudo-suffix, without obvious analogical base, is employed for comic effect: khaslyere for khasene ‘wedding’, mishpakhte(re/ray) for mishpokhe ‘family’, metsotse for metsie ‘bargain’, etc.; e) part of the effect often results from a crossing of component boundaries, giving a pseudo-Hebrew plural to a non-Hebrew word (oyganes ‘big eyes’, ligunim ‘falsehoods’, merdeyrim ‘murderers’; this probably accounts for the establishment of standard pl. naronim) or palatal (i.e. mostly Slavic) consonants to non-Slavic words (farlyapen zikh ‘to become infatuated’). Some mixed component compounds may owe their origin (or their ironic overtone) to a similar origin (dobre-mazl ‘luck’, seyferpralnik ‘holy book’). Attempting an inclusive typology of words that derive their effectiveness from a surprise effect linked with going beyond normal word-formation processes, would be vain.

9. Clipping Shortened words should be divided into two categories according to whether they were coined orally or with reference to their written form. In modern written languages, the former category is much smaller but yields quite different results. In Yiddish, there is yet again a difficulty in distinguishing self-made shortening from ready-made borrowings. Thus bos (= oytobus) is a loan from (American) English while the synonymous bus is also modeled on preexisting foreign clippings. The same can be said of oyto/avto (= oytomobil/avtomobil, the latter in the area of Russian influence). Genuine Yiddish “oral” clippings can be observed in the domain of given names, which in familiar and friendly usage (when trisyllabic or longer), shed their unaccented initial syllables: Froyem (= Efroyim), Kone (= Elkone), Lozer (= Elozer), Somer (= Isomer), Tole (= Naftole), Tsalel (= Betsalel), sometimes with inner variants of vocalism: Kha(t)skl (= Yekheskl), Sender (= Aleksander). Syncope of unaccented vowels (along with intervocalic [h]) occurs in Ksil (= Yekusiel), Rakhmi(e)l = Yerakhmiel, Shie (= Ye[hoy]shue [i] is the Southern realization of the accented vowel), Yude = Yehude (dim. Yidl), Khil = Yekhiel. Names stressed on the first syllable (including most disyllabic names) lose their ending, replaced by -e: Mire (= Miryam), Pinye (= Pinkhes), Tsipe (= Tsipoyre). Of course this combines with various hypocoristic suffixes (cf. section 4.1.1). Clippings originating from the written language can be roughly divided into letterbased and syllable-based. The first type has quite an ancient tradition in Yiddish, the language of a predominantly literate group. Because of the preeminence of Hebrew as a written language, abbreviations usually concern Hebrew expressions that are common in

138. Yiddish

2485

Yiddish. Such words enter the spoken language only when pronounced according to the shortened written form: shas ‫ =( ש׳׳ס‬shishe-sdorim ‘the six orders (of Mishna and Talmud)’), tanakh ‫( תנ׳׳ך‬Torah, Neviim and Ketubim, i.e. ‘the Hebrew Bible’), and many more. Some of these are used euphemistically (yash ‘liquor’) or as witty interpretations of words as strings of initials (favored by a similar cabbalistic method applied to Hebrew biblical texts), e.g., zikne ‫‘ זקנה‬old age’ spells out: ziftsn, krekhtsn, nisn, hustn ‘sighing, groaning, sneezing and coughing’. Strings of syllables are a younger way to shorten expressions which has been favored in Soviet Yiddish, where such words have been taken over from Russian (kolkhoz, komsomol, sovkhoz, etc.) or adapted on the basis of the Yiddish translation of the underlying expressions (kolvirt ‘kolkhoz’, sovirt ‘sovkhoz’, arbfak ‘workers’ faculty, (rabfak)’, raykom ‘district committee’, pedfak ‘pedagogical faculty’, etc.), these words often becoming the base of new adjectives or nouns (kolvirtish ‘kolkhoz’, komyugist ‘komsomol member’, etc.). Abbreviations using the names of Latin (e.g., referring to political affiliation) or Cyrillic letters (es-o-es, tsheka) are obviously not indigenous and should be viewed as borrowings. This is underscored by hesitation in pronunciation between the standardized Yiddish names of these letters and their name in the local language (cf. de-ve-de vs. di-vidi in English speaking countries and others).

10. References Birnbaum, Salomo A. 1922 Das hebräische und aramäische Element in der jiddischen Sprache. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Würzburg [Repr. Hamburg: Buske 1986]. Bratkowsky, Joan G. 1988 Yiddish Linguistics. A multilingual bibliography. New York: Garland. Falkovitsh, Elye 1940 Yidish. Fonetik, grafik, leksik un gramatik. Derloybt funem folkombild fun R.S.F.S.R. als hilfbukh. Moskau: Tsentraler felker-farlag. Goldberg, David 1996 Yidish af yidish. Gramatishe, leksishe, un shmues-materyaln farn tsveytn un dritn lernyor. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Green, Eugene 2008 The infix [-ev-] and initial accent in Yiddish verbs. In: Marvin Herzog, Ulrike Kiefer, Robert Neumann, Wolfgang Putschke and Andrew Sunshine (eds.), EYDES (Evidence of Yiddish Documented in European Societies), 83–96. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Jacobs, Neil G. 2005 Yiddish. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Katz, Dovid 1987 Grammar of the Yiddish Language. London: Duckworth. Landau, Alfred 1928 Di slavishe elementn un hashpoes in yidish; di tsunoyfgezetste tsaytverter. Filologishe shriftn (shriftn fun yidishn visnshaftlekhn institut) 2: 199−214 [Addenda et Corrigenda: 3 (1929): 615 f.]. Mark, Yudl 1974 Avrom Sutzkevers poetishe verk. Tel-Aviv: Peretz.

2486

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Mark, Yudl 1978 Gramatik fun der yidisher klal-shprakh. New York: Alveltlekher yidisher kultur-kongres. Neuberg, Simon 2012 Zur jiddischen Komposition: Gleich und gleich. In: Franciszek Grucza (ed.), Akten des XII. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Warschau 2010, „Vielheit und Einheit der Germanistik weltweit“, Sektion (41), jiddische Sprache und Literatur in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 33−37. Bern: Lang. Neuberg, Simon 2014 Aspects of Yiddish adjective formation: Nasal suffixes − creativity across a dual heritage. In: Björn Hansen and Marion Aptroot (eds.), Yiddish Language Structures, 253– 265. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Niborski, Yitskhok and Bernard Vaisbrot 2011 Yidish-frantseyzish verterbukh / Dictionnaire yiddish-français. 2nd ed. Paris: Bibliothèque Medem. Prilutski, Noyekh 1924 Shpet-loshn. Yidishe filologye 1: 33−45, 123−140, 338−382. Sadan, Dov 1971 Kheyn-gribelekh (tsu der biografye fun vort un vertl). 2 Vol. Buenos Aires: Alveltlekher yidisher kultur-kongres. Schächter, Mordche 1951 Aktionen im Jiddischen. Ein sprachwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur Bedeutungslehre des Verbums. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna [Ann Arbor, Univ. Microfilms International]. Schaechter, Mordkhe 1993 Yidish tsvey. A lernbukh far mitndike un vaythalters / Yiddish II. An intermediate and advanced textbook. New York: Yidish-lige. Shtif, Nokhem 1928a “bar” (tsu der yidisher vortbildung). Di yidishe shprakh. zhurnal far yidish shprakhvisn 3(10): 1−14. Shtif, Nokhem 1928b Tsugobn tsu di “bar”-bildungen. Di yidishe shprakh. zhurnal far yidish shprakhvisn 4− 5(11−12): 71−74. Timm, Erika 2005 Historische jiddische Semantik. Die Bibelübersetzungssprache als Faktor der Auseinanderentwicklung des jiddischen und des deutschen Wortschatzes. Unter Mitarbeit von Gustav Adolf Beckmann. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Vaisbrot, Bernard 2012 Grammaire descriptive du yidiche contemporain. Paris: Suger. Weinreich, Max 1923 Shtaplen. Fir etyudn tsu der yidisher shprakhvisnshaft un literaturgeshikhte. Berlin: Vostok [http://www.archive.org/details/nybc200407]. Zaretski, Ayzik 1926 Praktishe yidishe gramatik far lerers un studentn. Moskau: Shul un bukh [http://www. archive.org/details/praktisheyid00zare].

Simon Neuberg, Trier (Germany)

139. Faroese

2487

139. Faroese 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Borrowed word-formation and neoclassical word-formation Blending, clipping and word-creation References

Abstract Word-formation in Faroese is achieved by means of composition and derivation. Affixes are inherited from Old Norse but, due to intense language contact with Danish for centuries, many derivational affixes are borrowed from Danish. There are two kinds of composition: stem/root compounds and compounds with a linking element. The latter is based in most cases on the historical genitive. In addition, the lexicon of Faroese can also be increased by neologisms.

1. Introduction Faroese, as a North Germanic language, is usually grouped together with Icelandic and New Norwegian (Barnes and Weyhe 1994). In the syntactic literature, Faroese is grouped together with Icelandic as an Insular Scandinavian language opposite to the Mainland Scandinavian languages Danish, Norwegian and Swedish (Barnes and Weyhe 1994). Due to language contact with Danish, Faroese syntax often has Mainland Scandinavian constructions (Petersen 2010), and hence Faroese could perhaps be thought of as a MidScandinavian language. Faroese is the first language of the Faroe Islands, but Danish is learned thoroughly and can be used in all official contexts as well as Faroese, according to the Home Rule Act (Petersen 2010). There are presently around 50,000 speakers of Faroese on the Faroe Islands and around 25,000 in Denmark. Word-formation has not been studied as extensively in Faroese as, for example, in English, Dutch or, the closest relative to Faroese, Icelandic (cf. article 143 on Icelandic). Lockwood (1977 [1955]: 39−42) mentions noun compounds, and observes that substantives may have “adjectives, numerals, prepositions or verbs as qualifying elements” (Lockwood 1977 [1955]: 41). Additionally he mentions the historical genitive, and says that it functions as a compositional link. The genitive is discussed in Weyhe (1996), Thráinsson et al. (2004) and Petersen and Adams (2009), and most recently in Indriðason (2011), Petersen and Szczepaniak (2014) and Petersen (2015) among others. From these works it becomes clear that the genitive is no longer a productive case, except in the personal pronouns in forms like hansara ‘his’.

2488

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

A reasonable overview of word-formation can be found in Thráinsson et al. (2004: 204−221); another overview is Krenn (1940: 118−122). Compounded and non-compounded verbs are mentioned in Gullbein (2006) in his MA thesis, and composition and derivation are briefly touched upon in the small school grammar by Andreasen and Dahl (1997). An overview is also to be found in Davidsen and Mikkelsen (2011 [1993]). Lenvig (1996) has a summary of compounded prepositions such as uppi-á up-on ‘upstairs’. Petersen (2001a) is a discussion of the prefix endur- ‘re-’, where it is shown that it can only be attached to accomplishment verbs with the logical structure (x), (y) CAUSE [BECOME state, (y)] as in Jógvan endurmálar húsini ‘John repaints the house’. An overview of noun derivations is included in Petersen (2008), and agent nouns like rennari ‘runner’ from the verb at renna ‘to run’ are discussed in Weyhe (1991). Jacobsen (1997) discusses different doublets in Faroese, among others lóg ‘law’ and løg- ‘law’, and he draws the conclusion that the former is a lexeme, while the latter is a prefix. Simonsen (1993, 1995) shows that a compositional link -s, instead of the historical genitive -ar, occurs in compounds containing three nouns. She mentions doublets in place names like Gjógv+ar+á ‘ravine-river’ opposite to Hvala+gjógv+s+áin ‘whale-ravine-river-the’. Simonsen (2005) provides an overview of neologisms in technical language, where purists make use of, e.g., dead derivational processes and compounding. The suffix -ligur is discussed from a diachronic point of view in Poulsen (2004 [1969]: 58−62). Compounded and non-compounded verbs are considered in Sandøy (1976) who is especially concerned with western Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic. Main verbs are discussed in Petersen (2001b), where he shows that there are two underlying stems in Faroese, one monosyllabic and one disyllabic. Braunmüller (2001) discusses morphological typology and Faroese, and which changes might be expected. Staksberg (1996) is an overview of the -sa clitic. This is by and large what has been written about compounds and derivations in Faroese.

2. General overview Faroese has, as other Germanic languages, two productive word-formation processes: compounding and derivation. In addition to this, neologisms may be created by purists where they make use of extinct suffixes and phonological changes, like the Proto-Norse i-umlaut and an extinct suffix, as is done in the noun bleðil ‘foil’ in Føroysk orðabók [Faroese Dictionary] (1998). This noun is based on the simplex noun blað ‘paper’. In bleðil ‘foil’ purists have revived the i-umlaut and deletion of unstressed syllables, a change that took place in the development from Proto-Norse to Old Norse (*blaðilaR > bleðill). Additionally, they have revitalized the deletion of word final -l in the development from Old Norse bleðill to bleðil in Faroese. i-umlaut + suffixes is seen in other non-productive, but natural, derivations in Faroese, as in tyngd ‘weight’ that is derived from *þungiþō (Nielsen 1976: 432), compare the corresponding adjective tungur ‘heavy’ with the non-umlauted /u/ vowel. Usually derivation is made with a suffix such as -leikin stórur ‘big’ → stórleiki ‘bigness’ (the -i is the ending in the nominative singular) or by conversion at tvætla ‘to talk nonsense’ → tvætl ‘windbag’ (Petersen 2009: 212; Petersen 2015). Furthermore there is prefixation vinur ‘friend’ → óvinur un-friend ‘enemy’.

139. Faroese

2489

Compounding is done with stem compounds, mann+fjøld men-crowd ‘crowd’ or with a linking element that usually is based on the historical genitive: mansfjøld ‘crowd’, mannafjøld ‘crowd’. In some compounds a vowel alternation is observed as in tannlækni which is a combination of tann+lækni tooth-doctor ‘dentist’, from the root tonn ‘tooth’. The lexicon has furthermore been increased by loans mainly from Danish, with which the Faroese language society has been in contact for centuries (Petersen 2010), and by neologisms created by the purists. The purist tradition is not as strong on the Faroe Islands as it is in, e.g., Iceland, and it does not have the same acceptance in the population on the islands as in Iceland (Jacobsen 2012). The purists go about creating words in different ways. One way is obviously by using compounds like evnafrøði matterscience ‘chemistry’. The purists have also tried to revive old(er) affixes like er- in erbygljuovnur micro-wave-oven ‘micro-oven’. Another way to create words is by making use of word-formation rules that were once active. This is done in bleðil ‘foil’ from blað ‘paper’. It is done by means of i-umlaut (a > e), and the Proto-Norse suffix -ila-. Borrowings from Icelandic also occur like bókmentir ‘literature’. Yet another possibility is to take old words and give them new meaning like básur ‘stall’ which is now often is used in the meaning ‘stand’ in an exhibition. Then there are phrasal compounds like lærdur háskúli learned high-school ‘university’. Univerbation is defined in Booij (2007: 19) as “becoming a word” of phrases. Examples are: far-um-kring go-about-around ‘vagabond’, mal-í-ring grind-in-round ‘carousel’, and, from the latter half of 1700, sínsjálvsmaður one self’s man ‘independent man’ and mínsjálvsmaður mine self’s man ‘independent man’. Univerbation as defined by Booij (2007: 19), is also found in compound participial forms like afturfyrisegkomin after-foreself-come ‘recovered’ from the phrasal verb koma ‘to come’ + particle fyri ‘fore’ + the reflexive pronoun seg ‘self’ + the adverb aftur (Sandøy 1976).

3. Composition Compounding is productive in Faroese, and there are two ways of combining words: Root/stem compounds and compounds with a linking element. Compounds are right headed and the head-word can be a noun, an adjective, a verb, a numeral, an adverb or a preposition. In initial position one finds: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, quantifiers, pronouns, particles and prepositions. The linking element is the historical genitive or -i, -u, -a in verb compounds, where -u and -a are rare. For more on the linking elements see section 3.8.

3.1. Nominal compounds The following possibilities are found in noun compounds: noun+noun, adjective+noun, verb+noun, pronoun+noun, adverb+noun, quantifier+noun, particle+noun, preposition+noun and NP+noun. The -ur in the examples below, as in -fiskur ‘fish’, is the nominative singular ending in the masculine.

2490

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

NN AN VN PronN AdvN QN Particle+N P+N

[[arm]N[brot]N]N [[smá]A[fiskur]N]N [[dypp]V[kókari]N]N [[sjálv]pron[bjargni]N]N [[aftur]Adv[dekk]N]N [[tví]Q[buri]N]N [[aftur]Particle[koma]N]N [[í]P[blástur]N]N

arm-break ‘arm fracture’ lit. ‘small-fish’ lit. ‘dip-cooker’ self-rescue ‘independence’ lit. ‘after-deck (on a ship)’ two-birth ‘twin’ back coming ‘return’ in-breathing ‘inspiration’

Aftur ‘back’ is an adverb in afturdekk ‘after-deck’. It is a particle in afturkoma ‘to return’, because the base is the verb + particle construction koma aftur come back ‘to return’. Booij (cf. article 136 on Dutch) mentions NP+N compounds in Dutch like [[oude [mannen]NP [huis]N]N ‘old men’s house’. This corresponds to Faroese [[gamla [manna]NP[dansur]N]N ‘old men’s dance’ and [[gamla [manna]NP[møsn]N]N ‘old men’s nonsense’ and, e.g., [[trý [landa]NP [minikapping]N]N ‘small competition between three countries’. The compounds discussed are all right headed, as the semantics shows. Afturkoma is the ‘coming back’ and armbrot is the fracture of an arm and so on. Gender is according to the last word in the compound and so is word class. There is, however, at least one word, where the compounded noun shows a different gender from the simplex noun, and that is the name of the tree gullregn ‘laburnum’ which is feminine, even though regn ‘rain’ is neuter. Feminine in gullregn is in accordance with the semantic gender assignment rule that “trees are masculine or feminine”; and this particular example shows that semantic gender assignment takes precedence over morphological gender assignment (Petersen 2009: 55).

3.2. Adjectival compounds Adjectival compounds have a N, V, A, Pron, Adv, Num and a P as non-heads: NA AA PronA VA AdvA Q+A P+Adj

[[sorg]N[leysur]A]A [[bráð]A [djúpur]A]A [[sjálv]Pron[klókur]A]A [[renn]V[vátur]A]A [[innan]Adv[kátur]A]A [[tví]Q[beintur]A]A [í]P[gulur]A]A

sorrow-loose ‘carefree’ fast-deepening ‘deepening fast’ self-clever ‘self-opinionated’ ‘dripping wet’ inside-happy ‘happy inside in a peaceful manner’ ‘two-footed’ in-yellow ‘yellowish’

Furthermore there are compounded participial forms like [[aftur]Adv[fyri]P[seg]Reflexive[komin]Past Participle]A after-fore-self-come ‘recovered’. Sandøy (1976: 143−173) mentions examples with compounds with an action meaning like uppsagdur up-said ‘been given one’s notice’ from the verb + particle siga upp say up ‘to give one’s notice’. Sandøy (1976) furthermore mentions a state meaning in avstongdur off-locked ‘locked’ from the phrasal verb steingja av lock off ‘to lock up’.

139. Faroese

2491

The first part of the compound may be compounded, or the head may be formed by derivation: [[hug]N[mynda]N[leysur]A]A mind-picture-lose ‘unimaginative’, [[út]Adv[at] P[reagerandi]A]A out-off-reacting ‘outward-reacting’, where -and- is a suffix, [[evna]N[frøðiligur]A]A substance-science ‘chemical’. Booij (2007: 91) mentions synthetic compounding in English like blue-eyed, and Dutch examples such as blaw-og-ig ‘blue-eye-d’ (cf. article 136 on Dutch). Such compounds exist in Faroese. The head -oygdur does not exist as a simplex adjective; it is only found in these compounds among which brúnoygdur ‘brown-eyed’, kátoygdur ‘happy-eyed’ also occur (see also article 33 on synthetic compounds in German).

3.3. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds can have the form N+V, A+V, Q+V, Pron+V, Adv+V, P+V and particle+V. N+V compounds are relatively rare. There are 567 examples in Føroysk orðabók (1998). In the colloquial language one has telduskriva to computer write ‘to write on/ with a computer’, jólapynta ‘to decorate for Christmas’ and jólahugna ‘to have a good time during Christmas’. There are no verbal compounds like *mateta ‘food eat’ or *bilkoyra ‘car-drive’. NV AV QV PronV AdvV PV ParticleV

[[háls]N[fevna]V]V [[góð]A[skriva]V]V [[trí]Q[trola]V]V [sjálv]Pron[doyggja]V]V [[burtur]Adv[vísa]V]V [[við]P[føra]V]V [[av]Part[runda]V]V

neck-hug ‘to hug’ good-write ‘to credit’ lit. ‘three-trawl (two trawlers trawl, one waits)’ self-die ‘to die from accident or disease’ away-show ‘to suspend’ with-bring ‘to cause, involve’ off-round ‘to round off’

Gullbein (2006) has shown that the number of compounded verbs in Faroese is increasing at the expense of verb + particle constructions, so that speakers prefer avrunda ‘to round off’ to runda av ‘to round off’. The main reason behind this change is the contact situation with Danish (Petersen 2010).

3.4. Numerals Numerals in Faroese from 20 on are formed by means of coordination like ein og tjúgu ‘one-and-twenty’. They are usually written as above, to diverge from Danish enogtyve, from which these numbers are borrowed. The stress pattern with main stress on ein- and secondary stress on -tjúgu suggest that we are dealing with a compound in Faroese as well. Some purists use tjúguein ‘twenty one’ or tjúgu og ein twenty and one ‘twenty one’ instead of the colloquial einogtjúgu ‘twenty one’.

2492

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Compounding Coordination

fimmhundrað einogtjúgu

Asyndetic coordination Coordination + compounding

tjúguein fimmhundrað og fimm

‘five-hundred’ (multiplication) one and twenty ‘twenty one’ (addition) ‘twenty-one’ (addition) ‘five hundred and five’

The numerals from 13−19 have -tan as their second part: sekstan ‘sixteen’. Synchronically -tan is part of the stem; it is not a separate lexeme with its own meaning nor is it a productive derivational suffix. In the coordinated forms og is obligatory, which means that *eintjúgu and *fimmhundraðfimm are impossible.

3.5. Adverbial compounds In adverbial compounds the non-head can be a noun, an adjective, an adverb, a numeral or a particle. The following examples are illustrative: NAdv AAdv AdvAdv QAdv ParticleAdv

[[ár]N[langt]Adv]Adv [[tvør]A[vegin]Adv]Adv [[seinna]Adv[meiri]Adv]Adv [[ein]Q[skila]Adv]Adv [[av]Particle[bera]Adv] Adv

‘year-long’ across-road ‘across’ later-more ‘later’ one-sense ‘fantastic’ from-bearable ‘fantastic’

The particle + adverb compound builds on at bera av to bear from ‘to be fantastic’.

3.6. Prepositional compounds Lenvig (1996) has an overview with different prepositional compounds where the first part is an adverb like [[upp]Adv[úr]P]P ‘up-from’. A prepositional compound may have an allative sense (direction): [[upp]Adv[á]P]P ‘up-on’. Another possibility is to form a compound with an adverb that denotes location + a preposition: [[inni]Adv[í]P]P inside-in ‘inside’. The third possibility is to have a compound that has an ablative meaning (direction from) like [innan]Adv[úr]P]P from-inside out ‘from inside out’. All in all there are 594 possible compounds with an adverb + a preposition, but not all are used. Possible compounds with an adverb (denoting direction to, location or direction from + the 18 possible prepositions listed in Lenvig 1996: 6−8) gives 440 possibilities. Additional examples are: vit fara [[niður]Adv[í]P]P we go downin ‘we go down’, vit eru [[niðri]Adv[í]P]P we are down-in ‘we are down (in something)’, and vit fara [[niðan]Adv[í]P]P we go up-in ‘we go up to (something)’.

139. Faroese

2493

3.7. Affixoids An affixoid is a regular word that also can function as an affix. The form -skap ‘shape’ can be added to masculine and neuter nouns (Petersen 2008: 12). If the head of a neuter compound, the meaning is ‘shape’: andlitsskap ‘face-shape’ and kúluskap ‘ball-shape’, which corresponds to the meaning of the simplex noun skap ‘shape’. In masculine nouns, however, the ‘shape’ meaning is not transparent, cf. trøllskapur troll-shape ‘witchcraft; magic’ and bankaskapur bank-shape ‘banking’.

3.8. Linking elements There are reasons to think that the genitive does not exist as an active case in modern Faroese. Exceptions are the personal pronouns with forms like hansara ‘his’. The historical genitive is used as a linking element in all but verbal compounds (Indriðason 2011; Petersen and Szczepaniak 2014). Usually -s is used in the singular in masculine and neuter nouns, although -ar is possible in masculine nouns. In feminine nouns -ar is the most usual linking element, although -s is found in words like ellisheim ‘old people’s home’. The Old Norse genitive plural -a is also used as a linking element as in bygdavegur ‘road between villages’. Note that the singular -ar usually is pronounced [a] so that bygdarvegur ‘road in a village’ and bygdavegur ‘road between villages’ sound the same. Some nouns show vowel alternation when the linking element is added as: jørð ‘earth’ vs. jarðarhiti ‘earth temperature’, húsavørður ‘caretaker’ vs. húsavarðartænastan ‘service by the caretaker/caretakers’. In compounds with a verb in initial position there are three possible linking elements: -i, -u and -a. Of these -i is the most common one. VN renniskógvar ‘running shoes’, sagulað ‘sawing fundament’, prædikastólur ‘pulpit’. With adjectives as the first element, -ra is used as in sjúkrabilur sick-car ‘ambulance’ (sjúkra-, nominative sjúkur ‘sick’). This is not a common linking element.

4. Derivation Derivation is achieved by means of prefixation and suffixation. Furthermore there are derivations with the non-productive Indo-European ablaut: grava ‘to dig’ vs. the derived nouns grøv ‘grave’, grev ‘blade (of a Faroese spade)’, gryvja ‘ditch’. Another example is tyngd ‘heaviness’, from the adjective tungur ‘heavy’. Derivation and vowel alternation are found in words like leinging ‘lengthening’, from the adjective langur ‘long’, and treinging ‘repression’, from the adjective trongur ‘narrow’.

4.1. Nominal derivation Faroese has nominal prefixes and suffixes and vowel alternation + suffix: langur ‘long’ → leinging ‘lengthening’.

2494

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

4.1.1. Prefixation The nominal prefixes are: Tab. 139.1: Nominal prefixes Prefix aðal-

Base word

Prefixed noun

‘main’

verkfall

‘strike’

aðalverkfall

‘main strike’

al-

‘main-’

máttur

‘might’

Almáttur

main-might ‘God’

alla-

‘all-’

halga

‘holiday’

allahalgan

all-holy ‘1. November’

and-

‘against’

róður

‘rowing’

andróður

against-row ‘rowing against the current’

endur-

‘re-’

keyp

‘bargain’

endurkeyp

lit. ‘re-buying’

er-

‘micro-’

trevja

‘fiber’

eyð-

‘easy’

ertrevja

‘micro-fiber’

eyðkenni

easy-know ‘characteristics’

for-

‘front’

berg

‘cliff’

forberg

front-mountain ‘cliff’

há-

‘high’

hús

‘house’

háhús

high-house ‘skyscraper’

høvuðs-

‘main-’

mál

‘goal’

høvuðsmál

head-issue ‘main issue’

miðal-

‘middle-’

fiskur

‘fish’

miðalfiskur

middle-fish ‘average size fish’

megin-

‘main-’

land

‘country’

meginland

main-land ‘continent’

mis-

‘mis-, un-’

gerð

‘action’

misgerð

mis-doing ‘crime’

ný-

‘new-’

gerð

‘action’

nýgerð

‘new construction’

ov-

‘over-’

arbeiði

‘work’

ovarbeiði

over-work ‘too much work’

ovur-

‘over-’

dirvi

‘courage’

ovurdirvi

over-daring ‘overconfidence’

ó-

‘bad-’

gerð

‘action’

ógerð

bad-doing ‘atrocity’

sam-

‘co-’

svar

‘answer’

samsvar

‘to be in tally with something’

van-

‘un-, mis-’

lagna

‘fortune’

vanlagna

‘misfortune’

ør- (= er-)

‘micro-’

fiski

‘fishing’

ørfiski

little-fish ‘shortage of fish’

The prefixes above are native. In section 6 there is an overview of borrowed prefixes and suffixes, both borrowings from Danish and neoclassical affixes.

4.1.2. Suffixation Among the most productive suffixes in Faroese are the deverbal suffixes -ar and -an/ -ing; the first is used to derive masculine agent nouns, the latter two feminine action nouns. Faroese has three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter. In the following, masculine suffixes are listed first, then feminine and finally neuter ones (cf. also Thráinsson et al. 2004: 215; Petersen 2008: 3 ff.; Petersen 2015). Note that -ur and -i word-finally in the examples below are the masculine endings in the nominative singular.

139. Faroese

2495

Tab. 139.2: Masculine derivations Suffix

Base category

Base

Example

-að [av]

V

at javna

‘to regulate’

javnaður

‘equality’

-ar

V

at renna

‘to run’

rennari

‘runner’

-dóm

N

aldur

‘age’

aldurdómur

‘old age’

-dóm

A

fríur

‘free’

frídómur

‘freedom’

-dóm

V

at læra

‘to learn’

lærdómur

‘learning’

-dóm

Pron.

sjálvur

‘self’

sjálvdómur

‘judgment over oneself’

-ing

N

bulur

‘torso’

bulingur

‘big cod’

-ing

A

hvítur

‘white’

hvítingur

‘whiting’

-ing

V

renna

‘to run’

renningur

‘melting fat’

-ing

Q

seks

‘six’

sættingur

‘sixth’

-leik

N

salt

‘salt’

saltleiki

‘saltiness’

-leik

A

beiskur

‘bitter’

beiskleiki

‘bitterness’

-leik

Adv

betur

‘better’

beturleiki

‘betterness’

-leik

Q

ein

‘one’

einleiki

one-ness ‘genuineness’

-leik

Prefix

tor-

‘difficult’

torleiki

‘severity’

-ling

N

bók

‘book’

bóklingur

‘booklet’

-ling

A

dýrur

‘dear’

dýrlingur

‘saint’

-ling

V

rekja

‘to unravel’

riklingur

‘file of flounder’

-ning

V

byggja

‘to build’

bygningur

‘building’

-skap

N

banki

‘bank’

bankaskapur

‘bank-business’

-skap

A

harður

‘hard’

harðskapur

hard-ness ‘violence’

The -ar in rennari is mainly used to derive agent nouns, but it is also found in borrowings like medistari from Danish medister ‘Cumberland sausage’. It is furthermore used to derive instrumental nouns like kikari ‘binoculars’. The -ar suffix is a default suffix, used for adapting Danish and English nouns to Faroese as: skómakari ‘shoemaker’ from Danish skomager, elektrikari ‘electrician’ and teenagari from English teenager (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 215). Nouns derived with -ing denote person or animal names derived from an adjective: hvítingur ‘whiting’ from the adjective hvítur ‘white’; measure in fimm ‘five’ → fimtingur ‘fifth’; denominals: flykra ‘snowflake’ → flykringur ‘flake-snow’; persons from a place: Sørvágur (place of a village) → sørvingur ‘person from S.’ It is deverbal in: at toyggja ‘to streach’ → toyggingur ‘some special kind of milk’. It can be used to denote directions in the compass as landnyrðingur ‘north-east’. Nouns with the suffix -ning are mostly deverbal: at byggja ‘to build’ → bygningur ‘building’. The suffix -ling is a diminutive suffix: bók ‘book’ → bóklingur ‘booklet’, and it is used for denoting persons as dýrur ‘dear’ → dýrlingur ‘saint’ (Petersen 2008: 5−11). Non-productive is

2496

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 139.3: Feminine derivations Suffix

Base category

Base

Example

-an

V

flokka

‘to group’

flokkan

‘grouping’

-ing

V

roykja

‘to smoke’

royking

‘smoking’

-sk

A

ørur

‘mad’

ørska

‘madness’

-sl

V

at nýta

‘to use’

nýtsla

‘use’

-kunn

N

fólk

‘people’

fólkkunna

‘peoples’ general knowledge’

-kunn

A

fáur

‘few’

fákunna

little-knowledge ‘stupidity’

-ang in hunangur ‘honey’ and in leiðangur ‘campaign’ from the verb at leiða ‘to lead’. There is no base lexeme behind hunangur in Faroese. The most productive feminine suffixes are -ing and, a bit less productive, -an. They derive deverbal action nouns with an abstract meaning. In Old Norse -an was added to ō-verbs like kalla ‘to call’, but this rule is not transparent in Faroese, where -ing is the productive form, presumably due to the contact situation with Danish, where -ing is more frequent (see Table 139.3). Of the derivations above, -sk and -sl are usually not used spontaneously when new words are derived. Non-productive feminine suffixes are also: -d and -ð [w] in at deila ‘to divide’ → deild ‘department’, and at glógva ‘to glow’ → glóð ‘glow’. Neuter derivations are: Tab. 139.4: Neuter derivations Suffix

Base category

Base

Example

-dømi

N

val

‘election’

valdømi

‘constituency’

-i

A

vandin

‘careful’

vandni

‘carefulness’

-loysi

A

vónleysur

‘hopeless’

vónloysi

‘hopelessness’

-læti

N

tøkk

‘thank’

takklæti

‘thankfulness’

-læti

A

stórur

‘big’

stórlæti

big-ness ‘generosity’

-menni

N

tól

‘tool’

tólmenni

tool-man ‘robot’

-ni

A

blíður

‘kind’

blídni

‘kindness’

-ræði

A

harður

‘hard’

harðræði

hard-rule ‘tyranny’

-semi

N

løn

‘loan’

lønsemi

‘profitability’

-semi

Q

eitt, ein

‘one’

einsemi

‘loneliness’

-vísi

A

rættur

‘right’

rættvísi

right-showing ‘justice’

In Thráinsson et al. (2004: 214) the suffix -ald is mentioned. It is not included here, as it is only used in three words: mótald ‘modem’ from the verb at móta ‘to form’, bulald

139. Faroese

2497

‘body stocking, leotard’ from bulur ‘body’ and leggald ‘leg of a stocking’ from leggur ‘leg’. The suffix -semi is usually denominal. There is one example where an adjective is the base: góður ‘good, nice’ → góðsemi ‘goodness’, and then there are numeral bases like einsemi ‘loneliness’ and the neologism tví- ‘two’ and tvísemi ‘dualism’. In one case -semi is attached to an adverb: sjaldan/sjáldan ‘seldom’ → sjaldsemi/sjáldsemi ‘rare’.

4.2. Adjectival derivation Adjectival derivations are done by means of prefixes and suffixes. Vowel alternation is found in the denominal derivation jarðiskur ‘earthly’ from jørð ‘earth’.

4.2.1. Adjectival prefixation The historical genitive form alra- or more colloquial allar- from the indefinite pronoun allur ‘all’ is used as an up-toner prefix meaning ‘very, by far, of all’ (Petersen and Adams 2009: 90) as in Table 139.5. Tab. 139.5: Adjectival prefixes Prefix

Base word

Prefixed adjective

allar- / alra-

‘by far’

bestur

‘best’

allarbestur / alrabestur

all-best ‘by far the best (of all)’

al-

‘very’

fagur

‘pretty’

alfagur

‘very pretty’

av-

‘very’

gamal

‘old’

avgamal

‘very old’ /ag:gea:mal/

miðal-

‘middle’

góður

‘good’

miðalgóður

middle-good ‘average’

mis-

‘mis-, un-’

javnur

‘equal’

misjavnur

mis-equal ‘different’

ný-

‘new-’

málaður

‘painted’

nýmálaður

‘newly painted’

ov-

‘over-’

djarvur

‘brave’

ovdjarvur

‘very brave’

ovur-

‘over-’

djarvur

‘brave’

ovurdjarvur

‘very brave’

ó-

‘un-’

blíður

‘friendly’

óblíður

‘un-friendly’

tor-

‘difficult’

sigldur

‘sailed’

torsigldur

‘difficult to sail through’

van-

‘un-, mis-’

býttur

‘divided’

vanbýttur

‘get the worst part of something’

ør-

‘micro-’

lítil

‘little’

ørlítil

‘very little’

4.2.2. Suffixation Adjectival suffixes are listed in Table 139.6. The -ur is the ending in the nominative in the masculine in the illustration of the derived adjectives.

2498

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 139.6: Adjectival suffixes Suffix

Base category

Base

Derived adjective

-bær/-bar

N

arvur

‘inheritance’

arvbærur

‘hereditary’

-bær/-bar

Adv

títt

‘often’

títtbærur

‘woman who gives birth often’

-bær/-bar

P

á

‘on’

ábærur

‘exposed’

-ig, -ug

N

blóð

‘blood’

blóðigur

‘bloody’

neyð

‘need’

neyðugur

‘necessary’

-isk

N

jørð

‘earth’

jarðiskur

‘earthly’

-lig

N

andi

‘spirit’

andligur

‘spiritual’

-lig

A

blíður

‘kind’

blídligur

‘kind’

-lig

V

dáma

‘to like’

dámligur

‘pleasant’

-lig

Adv

fram

‘forward’

framligur

‘bold’

-loysin

A

lágur

‘low’

lágloysin

‘low-resolution’

-loysin

V

gáa

‘to pay attention to’

gáloysin

‘apathetic’

-sam

N

arbeiði

‘work’

arbeiðssamur

‘hard working’

-sam

Q

ein

‘one’

einsamur

one-same ‘alone’

-sk

N

himmal

‘heaven’

himmalskur

‘heavenly’

The suffix -sk is used to derive adjectives from nouns like Ísland → íslendskur ‘Icelandic’. The suffix -loysin is only found in three words: gáloysin ‘apathetic’, háloysin ‘with high resolution’ and lágloysin ‘with low resolution’. The latter two are neologisms. Poulsen (2004 [1969]: 59−62) lists different variants of -ligur and discusses the origin of these variants. Synchronically there are different linking elements in front of the suffix: broyta ‘to change’ → broytiligur ‘changeable’, elska ‘to love’ → elskuligur ‘loveable’. Additionally there is bygdarsligur ‘rustic’, which is based on the historical genitive bygdar ‘village’ and an intruding -s; the same intruding -s is found in jánkasligur, and buldrasligur. The origin is the old historical genitive in the masculine and neuter.

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Prefixation The verbal prefixes that are used in Faroese are listed in Table 139.7. In addition to these, there are the borrowed prefixes an-, be- and for-, see section 6. The verbal prefixes all have a verbal stem as their base.

139. Faroese

2499

Tab. 139.7: Verbal prefixes Prefix

Base word

Prefixed verb

al-

‘all-’

lýsa

‘to describe’

allýsa

all-describe ‘to define’

and-

‘against’ (rare)

rógva

‘to row’

andrógva

‘to row against the current’

av-

‘off’

greiða

‘to solve’

avgreiða

‘to serve, send’

endur-

‘re-’

kanna

‘to examine’

endurkanna

‘to reexamine’

full-

‘full-’

fíggja

‘to finance’

fullfíggja

full-finance ‘to complete’

mis-

‘mis-’

trúgva

‘to believe’

mistrúgva

‘to misbelieve’

ný-

‘new-’

skapa

‘to create’

nýskapa

new-create ‘to innovate’

ov-

‘over-’

eta

‘to eat’

oveta

‘to over-eat’

ovur

‘over-’

eta

‘to eat’

ovureta

‘to over-eat’

4.3.2. Suffixation Thráinsson et al. (2004: 217) claim that verbal derivations are formed alone with the suffix -a in relatively formal language, informal language and child language. The same suffix is used to adapt verbs from other languages. Examples from Thráinsson et al. (2004: 217) are, e.g., perla ‘pearl’ and the verb at perla ‘to pearl’. There is a problem with this analysis. The -a is not a suffix; it is part of the stem, cf. the imperative in the singular: perla! 2nd and 3rd ps. sg. [[perla]r]. The surface form of, for example, the 1st ps. sg., indicative is perli, which is derived from an underlying form //perla+i// with deletion of the stem vowel. As this is so, we are dealing with conversion.

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbial prefixes are: Tab. 139.8: Adverbial prefixes Prefix

Base word

al-

‘all-, complete’

ár-

‘early’

fagurt

‘pretty’

foró-

‘un-’

keypis

‘buy’

Prefixed adverb alfagurt

‘very pretty’

árdegis

‘early’

fordánt

‘and so on’

ókeypis

‘free of charge’

There is no base word for fordánt nor for árdegis.

2500

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European Table 139.9 lists the adverbial suffixes of Faroese:

Tab. 139.9: Adverbial suffixes Suffix

Base category

Base

Example

-a

Q PP+NP A

ein uttan + land illur

‘one’ ‘outside country’ ‘bad’

eina uttanlanda illa

‘carefully’ ‘abroad’ ‘badly’

-an

A

javnur

‘equal’

javnan

‘often’

-an

Adv

út

‘out’

uttan

‘from outside’

-andi

N

fon

‘fluff’

fonandi fonandi hvítt

‘snow-white’

-andi

V

bika

‘to smear with tar’

bikandi bikandi svart

‘very dark’

-ar

Adv

út

‘out’

uttar

‘further out’

-i

Adv

út

‘out’

úti

‘outside’

-is

N

-skeið

‘time’

miðskeiðis

‘in the middle’

-laga

Adv

út

‘out’

uttarlaga

‘fairly far out’

-lendis

PP+NP

uttan + lendis

‘outside’

uttanlendis

‘outside country, abroad’

-liga

A

blíður

‘mild’

blídliga

‘mildly’

-líka

P

frá

‘from’

frálíka

‘fantastic’

A

høgra

‘right’

‘on the right’

Pron

báðir

‘both’

høgrumegin, høgruminni báðumegin

-(i)ni

Adv

illa

-nis

N

stað

-s

PP+NP

-sama -skila

-megin -minni

‘on both sides’

illani árini in: í morgin árini

‘tomorrow’

‘place’

allastaðnis

‘in all places’

uttan lands

‘outside’

uttanlands

‘abroad’

Pron

sjálvur

‘self’

sjálvsama

‘rare’

P

frá

‘from’

fráskila

‘fantastic’

The adverb eina is mostly used in the idiom leggja sær eina við lay oneself one with ‘to be very careful’. The PP uttan + the NP lands means ‘outside one country’ = ‘abroad’, and it is grammaticalized as an adverb: uttanlands ‘abroad’. The same happened in uttanlendis ‘abroad’. Often an -a is added to -land resulting in uttanlanda ‘abroad’. The -is-suffix is from the genitive ending of ON lja-stems, e.g., lend-is. The form -minni in høgruminni ‘on the right’ is used in the colloquial language. The suffix -líka is not productive; the only examples in Føroysk Orðabók (1998) are the frequently used frálíka ‘fantastic’ and ólíka ‘unlike’, which is mainly used in written

139. Faroese

2501

Faroese. Rare or almost extinct are: háttlíka ‘same, in the same way’ from the noun háttur ‘way’, javnlíka ‘in the same way’ from the adjective javnur ‘equal’, tesslíka ‘in the same way’ from the historical genitive of the personal pronoun tess, nominative tað ‘it’, and the local dialect-word úrlíka ‘fantastic’, where the first part of the compound is the preposition úr ‘from’; javnlíka is marked as a ballad word. The suffix -nar is rare; presumably it only occurs in til fulnar ‘completely’ from the adjective fullur ‘full’. The deadjectival suffix -um is not much used in the colloquial language, although one might hear: stórur ‘big’ → stórum ‘roughly’. The suffix -gegn/ -gjøgn is a grammaticalization of the preposition ígjøgnum ‘through’. Another rare suffix is -inda/-indi in náminda/námindi ‘near’. The adverb illani is a further development from illa ‘bad’ with -n from, e.g., javnan ‘often’ and uttan ‘from outside’, and -i from, e.g., úti ‘out’.

5. Conversion Conversion is defined as “the making of new words by using word forms of one syntactic category as words of another one, without overt morphological marking” (Booij 2007: 311); see also Spencer (1991: 20). Conversion is found in deverbal negative neuter nouns as shown in Petersen (2009: 212 ff.) with examples like at híma ‘to shine faintly’ → eitt hím ‘a weakling’. Other examples, although not deverbal, are eitt beist ‘a beast’; cf. Jespersen (1999 [1924]: 239) where he mentions Danish terms of abuse like bæst ‘beast’, fjols ‘fool’ and drog ‘good-for-nothing’. Further examples of conversion are given below. They are not written with a hyphen in Faroese orthography. What is to the right of the hyphen is an ending. N A A V

to to to to

V N V N

bók ovast-ur døkk-ur far-a prál-a at drív-a

‘book’ ‘headmost’ ‘dark’ ‘to go’ ‘to boast’ ‘to drift’

at bók-a ovast-i døkk-ast far-i prál driv

‘to post’ ‘leader’ ‘to become dark’ ‘goer; traveler’ ‘boaster’ ‘drift’

The NV compound [[jóla]N[pynta]V]V lit. ‘Christmas decorate’ is formed by means of conversion from the compounded noun [[jóla]N[pynt]N]N ‘Christmas decorations’, and [[jóla]N[hugna]V]V lit. ‘Christmas-have-fun’ is derived by conversion from the noun [[jóla]N[hugni]N]N] ‘Christmas-comfort’. In hugni the word final -i is the nominative ending. The A to N pattern found in spoken Faroese is exemplified by lýggj-ur ‘warm’ → lýgg-i ‘luke-warmth’. Another type of verb-to-noun conversion is found in at dríva ‘to drift’ → drív ‘drift’ and smíða ‘forge’ → smíð ‘forging’ for the expected (or historically correct) driv ‘drift’ and smið ‘forging’.

6. Borrowed word-formation and neoclassical word-formation Neoclassical affixes and Low German ones have typically entered Faroese from Danish. The Low German affixes that have been borrowed into Faroese are: an-, -arí, be-, for-,

2502

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

-heit, -ilsi, -vís, as in bangheit lit. ‘afraid-ness’ in the idiom tað beri eg onga bangheit fyri it bear I no afraid-ness for ‘I do not worry about that’. Table 139.10 displays the most common non-native prefixes in Faroese. In some cases it is impossible to determine any base, as the root/stem simply does not exist. An example is the frequent verb at begynna ‘to begin’ from Danish begynde (from Low German beginnen). Tab. 139.10: Borrowed Low German via Danish prefixes and neoclassical prefixes Prefix

Base word

Prefixed word

an-

geva

‘to give’

angeva

‘to indicate’

anti-

síða

‘page’

antigrindadrápssíða

‘anti-pilot-whale-page’

be-

grava

‘to dig’

begrava

‘to bury’

be-

ráð

‘advice’

beráð

‘intention’

be-

klæða

‘dress’

beklæddur

‘lined’

eks-

frú

‘Miss’

eksfrú Tiger

‘ex-Miss Tiger’

for-

vænta

‘to expect’

forvænta

‘to expect’

for-

deiling

‘distribution’

fordeiling

‘distribution’

infra-

kervi

‘system’

infrakervi

‘infra-system’

inter-

varp

‘radio’

intervarp

‘inter-radio’

kontra-

fótbóltur

‘football’

kontrafótbóltur

‘contra-football’

med-

ábyrgd

‘responsibility’

medábyrgd

‘share in responsibility’

meta-

mál

‘language’

metamál

‘meta-language’

mini-

íbúð

‘apartment’

miniíbúð

‘mini-apartment’

pseudo-

-op

‘opening’

pseudogosop

‘pseudo-volcano-crate’

semi-

-turkaður

‘dried’

semisólturkaður

‘semi-sun-dried’

super-

brúkari

‘consumer’

superbrúkari

‘super consumer’

super-

pallur

‘scene’

superpallur

‘super-scene’

super-

góður

‘good’

supergóður

‘super-good’

The most common suffixes are displayed in Table 139.11: Tab. 139.11: Borrowed suffixes in Faroese Suffix

Base

Base word

Output

Derived noun

-aktig

N

Hollywood

A

Hollywoodaktigur

‘H-like’

-alsk

N

musikkur

‘music’

A

musikalskur

‘musical’

-ant

V

prædika

‘to sermon’

N

prætikantur

‘preacher’

-al

N

fundament

‘foundation’

A

fundamentalur

‘fundamental’

139. Faroese

2503

Tab. 139.11: (continued) Suffix

Base

Base word

Output

Derived noun

-ar

N

atom

‘atom’

A

atomarur

‘atomic’

-arí

V

baka

‘to bake’

N

bakarí

‘bakery’

-dør

N

ambassada

‘embassy’

N

ambassadørur

‘ambassador’

-ell

N

strukturur

‘structure’

A

strukturellur

‘structural’

-heit

A

býttur

‘stupid’

N

býttheit

‘stupidity’

-inn

N

lærari

‘teacher’

N

lærarinna

‘female teacher’

-ilsi

V

at øra

‘to feel dizzy’

N

ørilsi

‘dizziness’

-isk

N

jørð

‘earth’

A

jarðiskur

‘earthly’

-ism

N

kommunistur

‘communist’

N

kommunisma

‘communism’

-ning

V

at halda

‘to think, mean’

N

holdningur

‘attitude’

-vís

N

dagur

‘day’

A

dagavís

‘for days’

7. Blending, clipping and word-creation There are only few examples of blending, clipping and word-creation in Faroese. Blending is found in Rúsan ‘The Wine Monopoly’ from Rúsdrekkasøla landsins and in Keypsan ‘Co-operative society’ from Keypsamtøkan ‘id’. Rúsdrekkasøla landsins ‘The Wine Monopoly’ is compounded of [[rús]N[drekka]N[søla]N]N + the noun landsins with a revived definite genitive form. Rúsan is made of the first word, rús-, and the -a of søla ‘selling’, which is the nominative of weak nouns to which the definite ending -n is added. Keypsan is from keyp- ‘to buy’ + -s- from samtøka ‘cooperation’, the nominative ending -a and the definite suffix -n. As such these could count as blends, but since parts of the words are deleted, another possibility is to consider them clippings. Clipping, where one or more syllables of a word are deleted, can be found in examples such as vinkona lit. ‘friend-woman’ → vinka ‘female friend’, Miðjarðarhavið middle-earth-ocean ‘Mediterranean’ → Miðjarhavið ‘Mediterranean’ (-jarðar- [jea:rar], which is the historical genitive of jørð ‘earth’, becomes -jar- [jar], perhaps under the influence of miðja ‘middle’), and elektrisitet → leks(i)tet (spoken Faroese). Another one is úss from ússaligur ‘poor’. Acronyms are found in ALS from Arbeiðsloysisskipanin un-employment-arrangement ‘The Unemployment Fund’, and SMS [es:em:es:]. Word-creation is very rare and there are only a few examples of onomatopoeic words like djums ‘bump’ (see Patat 2000).

8. References Andreasen, Paulivar and Árni Dahl 1997 Føroysk Mállæra. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnur.

2504

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Barnes, Michael and Eivind Weyhe 1994 Faroese. In: Ekkehard König and Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Germanic Languages, 190−218. London: Routledge. Booij, Geert 2007 The Grammar of Words. An Introduction to Morphology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braunmüller, Kurt 2001 Morfologisk typologi og færøsk. In: Kurt Braunmüller and Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen (eds.), Moderne lingvistiske teorier og færøsk, 67−89. Oslo: Novus. Davidsen, Kári and Jonhard Mikkelsen 2011 [1993] Ein ferð inn í føroyskt. Vestmanna: Sprotin. Føroysk Orðabók 1998 Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag. Gullbein, Sjúrður 2006 Soleiðis segði mamma mín. Orsøkin til føroyska málreinsing og ein samanburður millum Móðurmálsorðabókina 1998 og nútíðar føroyskt, við serligum atliti at skriftmáli. MA thesis, The Department of Faroese, University of the Faroe Islands. Indriðason, Thorsteinn 2011 Om fugesammensetninger i vestnordisk. In: Gunnstein Akselberg and Edit Bugge (eds.), Vestnordisk språkkontakt gjennom 1200 år, 257–275. Tórshavn: Fróðskapur. Jacobsen, Jógvan í Lon 1997 Songkona ella seingjarfelagi. Varðin 64: 132−147. Jacobsen, Jógvan í Lon 2012 Ærlig talt who cares? En sociolingvistisk undersøgelse af holdninger til og brug af importord of afløsningsord i færøsk. Oslo: Novus. Jespersen, Otto 1999 [1924] The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Krenn, Ernst 1940 Föroyische Sprachlehre. Heidelberg: Winter. Lenvig, Tummas 1996 Orðasamansetingar. Málting 16: 4−9. Lockwood, Willliam B. 1977 [1955] An Introduction to Modern Faroese. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnur [Reprint: 2002]. Nielsen, Niels Åge 1976 Dansk etymologisk ordbog. Ordenes historie. København: Gyldendal. Patat, Bence 2000 Onomatopoetikon og føroyskt. Málting 1: 2−9. Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2001a Hovedverber i færøsk: En studie af ordstadiet. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidskrift 19: 3−28. Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2001b Samansett sagnorð við endur-. Fróðskaparrit 48: 21−28. Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2008 Navnorðaavleiðslur. Varðin 75: 26−43. Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2009 Gender Assignment in Modern Faroese. Hamburg: Kovač. Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2010 The Dynamics of Faroese-Danish Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter. Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2015 Føroysk mállæra I. Kyn, orðmyndan og bending. Sandavágur: Málseta. Petersen, Hjalmar P. and Jonathan Adams 2009 Faroese. A Language Course for Beginners: Grammar. Tórshavn: Stiðin.

140. Danish

2505

Petersen, Hjalmar P. and Renata Szczepaniak 2014 Frá hvørsfalli til klipi. Fróðskaparrit 61: 163−179. Poulsen, Jóhan Hendrik Winter 2004 [1969] Føroysk lýsingarorð, sum enda við -aligur. Fróðskaparrit 17: 100−104. Sandøy, Helge 1976 Laust sammensette verb i vestnordisk. Ein samanliknande leddstillingsanalyse for islandsk, færøysk og romsdalsmål. MA thesis, University of Oslo. Simonsen, Marjun Arge 1993 Hoyvíkshólmur ella Hoyvíkarhólmur. Málting 8: 2−6. Simonsen, Marjun Arge 1995 Gjógvará, Gjáartangi ella Hvalagjógváin. Málting 14: 20−25. Simonsen, Marjun Arge 2005 Føroysk frøðiorðagerð. Føroysk frøði- og yrkorðagerð verður viðgjørd og greind við søguligum baksýni. MA thesis, The Department of Faroese, University of the Faroe Islands. Spencer, Andrew 1991 Morphological Theory. An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell. Staksberg, Marius 1996 Sa-possessiv. Málting 18: 28−34. Thráinsson, Höskuldur 2007 The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen and Zakaris Svabo Hansen 2004 Faroese. An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag. Weyhe, Eivind 1991 Pluralis af nomina agentis på -ari i færøsk. Danske folkemål 33: 263−275. Weyhe, Eivind 1996 Genitiven i færøske grammatikker − et problembarn. In: Studier i talesprogsvariation og sprogkontakt. Til Inger Ejskjær på halvfjerdsårsdagen den 20. maj 1996, 309−320. Copenhagen: Reizel.

Hjalmar P. Petersen, Tórshavn (Faroe Islands)

140. Danish 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

2506

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Abstract Danish is a language with a rapidly declining morphology, which provides a sound basis for specific word-formation processes since morphology in general does not block compounding and derivation. On the other hand, Danish orthography and what is left of Danish nominal definite inflection resists the formation of, sometimes, very long nominal compounds, which make up the bulk of Danish compounds. Danish can assemble all kinds of compounds in the main word classes and with bases from the main word classes. This is also the case with derivation: derivatives can be nouns, verbs and adjectives, and can be constructed from nouns, verbs and adjectives, but the central issue is the traditional problem of demarcation, i.e. whether parts of words can be identified and the borderlines between them can be found; and accordingly also the question is whether historical knowledge about the word forms should be included in the analyses.

1. Introduction Unlike grammar, word-formation has not been within the main field of interest of Danish language scholars, who have otherwise, since the end of the Middle Ages, contributed substantially to the language sciences, and this lack of interest inspired the acknowledged expert in the history of the Danish language, Peter Skautrup, to make a lamenting remark on the low priority given to the study of Danish word-formation (Skautrup 1968: 21). Apart from modern electronically accessible data, Skautrup (1968 [1944], 1968 [1947], 1968 [1953]) is the comprised main source of Danish materials on word-formation from a historical perspective and up until the early 20th century, but one of the scholars mentioned with approval by Skautrup (1968 [1953]: 91) is Petersen (1826), stating that this is “a remarkable attempt to systematise the material”. However, the subject is actually taken up as a separate part of grammar by some scholars, e.g., by Bentzien (1829), although very briefly (Bentzien 1829: 80−88). When Danish orthography was in the process of being codified in the late 19th century, one might have expected that the dictionaries on Danish spelling being published would, as a natural by-product, take up the important issue of word-formation, but an authoritative dictionary like, for instance, Saabys Retskrivningsordbog (Thorsen 1919) only mentions the core notions of “stem, root; compound and derivative” (Thorsen 1919: 31) and no further comments are offered. Going back in history, one might mention that the great Danish language scholar Jens Pedersen Høysgaard offers no systematic account of Danish word-formation since his main focus was on what he conceived of as grammar, i.e. including phonetic and orthographic phenomena, cf. Høysgaard (1747). Some reflections on neologisms are expressed by Jacobsen (1913), but her book is an adaptation of a Swedish book with a parallel title and illustrated with Danish materials. Mikkelsen’s (1911) grammar, which is one of three significant Danish grammars of the 20th century (the two other ones being Diderichsen’s 1966 [1946] and Hansen’s 1967), does not offer separate accounts of Danish derivation and composition, respectively. In Mikkelsen (1911) the notion of derivation (in Danish: “afledning”) is found in some relevant places in the contexts of other issues, and composition is only taken up

140. Danish

2507

explicitly concerning verbal compounding (Mikkelsen 1911: 354 ff.), but in line with Hansen (1967) one will find an abundance of empirical materials illustrating word-formation patterns in Danish. As for the two 20th century acknowledged scholars of Modern Danish, Paul Diderichsen and Aage Hansen, it is a characteristic feature that they present approaches to wordformation that are highly influenced by their basic theoretical frameworks in the language sciences. Aage Hansen‘s approach is inspired by his association with the glossematic school attributed to the great Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev, and accordingly it is conceived of as part of the framework of Hjelmslevian glossematics. And so is the brief theoretical contribution by Holt (1956). Whereas Diderichsen’s theoretical framework is his own theory of syntax, in general labelled his “Sætningsskema” [sentence scheme (or table)] that depicts the topological orientation of Danish (and Swedish and Norwegian) sentences, Hansen’s point of departure is, in the vein of Hjelmslev, the text, or, in his own vocabulary, “talen” [(a piece or an instantiation of) speech] (Hansen 1967, Vol. 1: 17), and this kind of analysis applied to what one might call a manifestation of an extended linguistic sign is subsequently and stepwise narrowed down to sentences (syntax) and words (Hansen 1967, Vol. 1: 231 ff.), ending up with phonemes and graphemes. The presentations of derivation and composition, respectively, are close to the insights of the tradition and differ from the tradition only in what concerns the analysis of the assumed relations between the expressions mentioned by using technical terms from glossematics. The latest Danish grammar, Hansen and Heltoft (2011), has a special chapter on word-formation. One researcher who has done substantial work on word-formation in Denmark is the lexicographer Asgerd Gudiksen who has published on empirical findings, primarily in Danish dialects, and on analyses of formation mechanisms − most of her contributions being written in Danish, cf. Gudiksen (1994, 1999). She is also one of the contributors to Andersen and Jensen (2011), and her article (pp. 87−98) together with the contribution from Andersen (pp. 119−132) represents some reflections on contemporary Danish word-formation.

2. General overview The main characteristics of word-formation in Danish can be summed up as a few basic features: derivatives use prefixes and suffixes allowing no infixes, whereas compounds are made by combining words from different word classes almost freely. And Danish word-formation rules tolerate even very long formations combining both derivational morphemes and compounds so that in Copenhagen of the 1950s children could be heard playing with long words: skinne+skidt+skrab+er+mad+kasse+låg ‘rail-dirt-cleaner-food-box-cover’ referring to the workers cleaning the rails used by the − by then − existing trams and the worker’s small boxes containing their lunch meal; and this, mainly compounding, word could, in principle, be extended infinitely.

2508

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Danish compounds are usually formed by combining two or more roots, like bordben ‘table leg’ in which the root ben has been attached at the end of the root bord. Unlike English, Danish compounds are spelled as unbroken strings of letters with no spaces, and this feature reflects the spelling of Danish morphology, for instance, concerning definite articles: bordbenet ‘table leg-the’. The ending -et (neuter gender; common gender has -en) denotes definite meaning when a noun has no preceding adjectival expression (as opposed to: det lange bordben ‘the long table leg’), and accordingly the spelling corresponds to the morphemic structure of the word. This has not always been so because in pre-Modern Danish we may find spellings like Bord-Ende ‘table end (head of the table)’ and Bord-Dug ‘table cloth’ (attested in Holbergordbog 1981−88), meaning that, besides the German habit of using initials in the upper case, a hyphen is used to indicate that this is a compound. But also in these cases only the last element is inflected: BordBenet. Sometimes a linking element (a vowel or a consonant) is used in order to ease the combination of the words: rundbordssamtale ‘round table talk’. The initial consonant sin the last word, samtale, (by itself a derivative made out of sam- ‘together’ and tale ‘speak’) is preceded by another -s-, which functions as a linking consonant since it plays no morphological role in the compound (for further discussion of linking elements in Germanic, see article 32). Such linking elements may go back to inflectional forms in Old Danish, and some of them survive in collocations or idiomatic expressions like the -s in gå til bords ‘go to table’ and the -e in gå fra borde ‘go from board (disembark)’, the first of which is one of the Old Danish genitives while the second one is the relic of an old dative case. In contemporary Danish it is a peculiar feature of the -s- that it seems to have a social bias. In the 1980s a Danish political party changed its name from Centrumsdemokraterne to Centrumdemokraterne ‘the centre-democrats’, and -s- spellings have become obsolete (or even been intentionally deleted) in expressions like videnscenter > videncenter ‘information/knowledge centre’. The reason seems to be a mix of psychological and cultural factors, but the process is not likely to be reverted. Danish orthography sometimes makes it difficult to decode the conceptual relations between the notions of the lexemes, and the parallel pronunciation does not always solve the problem. A recently developed job title in public services in Denmark is social ansvarlighedschef ‘social responsibility director’, i.e. ‘person who is the manager of the department taking care of social responsibility in a town or city’. The problem is that the phrase social ansvarlighed is, in Danish, not a compound, it is a noun phrase including an adjective, whereas the expression social ansvarlighedschef must be a compound because the preceding lexemes, the adjective social and the (derived) noun ansvarlighed specify the noun chef to the effect that the compound consisting of the two lexemes denotes a subset of the notion chef. Accordingly the compound semantics is not reflected in spelling, and the problem is not easily resolved in Danish orthography. Danish derivatives are usually formed by attaching a prefix or a suffix to a root or a stem and, like with compounds, these derivatives can become fairly long if it is convenient for the purpose of the language user: uforståelighedsmæssig ‘concerning unintelligibility’, made up of the expressions u+for+ståe+lig+hed+s+mæssig, of which u- is a negative prefix, for- is a verbal prefix, stå ‘stand’ is a verb (-e- in ståe is of mixed origin and sometimes pronounced by Danes in this context), -lig is an adjectival suffix, -hed is a nominal suffix, -s- is a linking consonant, and -mæssig is an adjectival suffix. Not

140. Danish

2509

many Danish language users will utilise this expression but it does not violate any of the formation rules of Danish derivatives. A rather productive kind of composition and derivation in Danish is the host of neoclassical word forms, but these should be taken with some reservations since the majority of them are, in their compound forms, loanwords like the technologically motivated word computergrafik ‘computer graphics’ from English. Whether there are real blends, in a narrow sense, in Danish may be debated. There are root formations in which the last word form represents a lexeme, like horticultural blomkål ‘cauliflower’ (-kål meaning ‘cabbage’; but blomkål is not cabbage) and hindbær ‘raspberry’ in which one may identify -kål as ‘cabbage’ and -bær as ‘berry’ but no lexemes blom and hind are found in Modern Danish in a horticultural context. We do find blends in Danish, like, for instance, motel, brunch, Interpol, Eurovision and cyborg, but none of these is a Danish blend because they are simplex loanwords. The Danish language presents one with some of the usual problems concerning the demarcation between the different types of word-formation, i.e. derivation vs. composition as well as concerning the identification of the internal parts of the end products of these processes. It is, to a certain extent, sometimes difficult to determine where the borderline between a root or a stem and, for instance, a derivational morpheme is to be found. When one of the combining parts is not a single free expression, like hind- in hindbær ‘raspberry’, but looks like a prefix, like be- in begynde ‘to start’ or befale ‘to order, command’, which have no lexemes *gynde and *fale, and furthermore be- is found as a genuine prefix in, e.g., berøre ‘to touch’ because Danish has the verb røre ‘to touch’ implying some minor differences in their semantics, then there is no clear-cut borderline between derivations and what might be called pseudo-derivations because they function as simplex words. Neither is it a straightforward case to make the relevant distinctions when one is presented with a series of more or less metaphoric and idiomatic word forms: nedstryger is a ‘hacksaw’ (ned ‘down’ + stryge ‘to stroke’), løbehjul is a ‘(toy) scooter’ (løbe ‘to run’ + hjul ‘wheel’), to be lydhør is to be ‘sensitive (open)’ (lyd ‘(a) sound’ + hør(e) ‘to listen, hear’), to be koldblodig is to be ‘composed, cool’ (kold ‘cold’ + blodig ‘bloody’, cf. English cold-blooded) and to håndhæve is to ‘maintain, enforce’ (hånd ‘hand’ + hæve ‘to raise, lift’). Even though all of these compounds and derivatives contain parts that are lexemes their combination yield meanings that are not licensed by the parts, and they are, at best, seen as simplex words.

3. Composition Whereas the latest dictionary of Modern Danish is Den Danske Ordbog (DDO 2003− 05), one may mention a special publication that filled the gap between, on the one hand, the closing year 1955 of the great Danish work in lexicography: Ordbog over det danske Sprog (ODS 1918−54) [Dictionary of the Danish language], including the 5 supplementary volumes, and, on the other, the DDO (2003–05). The special publication is Nye ord i dansk 1955−1975 (NOD 1984) [New words in Danish], later extended up to 1998 (cf. Nye Ord 1955–98 1999). The editor, Pia Jarvad, mentions in Jarvad (1995: 184–185) that the vast majority of new words in Danish are compounds. In NOD there are three

2510

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

times as many compounds as there are other types of new words, and the proportion of noun-noun compounds reveals that this principle of composition also constitutes the vast majority of compounds in Danish.

3.1. Nominal compounds Some of the nominal compounds go back to separate Germanic words, e.g., dagpleje ‘day care’ (← dag ‘day’ + pleje ‘care’), in which the modifier subclassifies the head. Such an endocentric Danish compound can be extended by a potentially large number of nouns: dagplejemor ‘day care mother’, dagplejemorhave ‘day care mother garden’, dagplejemorhaveblomst ‘day care mother garden flower’. In this case the head function moves one step to the right every time a new head is attached and the resulting sequence of the preceding lexemes becomes the modifier. Sometimes one cannot easily decide which parts belong together, for instance in the exocentric compound stålhaglpatron ‘steel shot cartridge’. For someone unfamiliar with this word it may be hard to know whether what is meant is a patron ‘cartridge’ containing stålhagl ‘steel shots’ or it is a haglpatron ‘cartridge with shots’ made of stål ‘steel’. Quite often, the nominal parts of Danish compounds may be put together by means of the linking elements -s-, -e- and -(e)n-: dag-s-værk ‘a day’s work’, barn-e-leg children’s play ‘easy-to-do thing’, rosen-busk ‘rosebush’, and, apart from scholars tracing the etymological origin of a linking element, it is, for a contemporary Danish language user, not relevant how such expressions can be historically analysed. The particular -(e)nelement is the result of German influence on Danish and it is not productive today, and likewise one finds a number of lexicalised compounds that are, in contemporary Danish, perceived as simplex words: øjenbryn ‘eyebrow’, giftermål ‘marriage’ (the -er is an old genitive), bukseknap ‘trouser button’. Both -s- and -e- are productive but -e- seems to be the most frequent, and it can combine with both singular and plural nouns: barnesæde children-seat ‘car seat’ and børneforvaltning ‘children’s administration = administration of children’s affairs in a town or city’ (← børn, plural). It might be observed that some of the -e- linking elements originate in the phonetic reduction of the conjunction in Danish og ‘and’, mostly pronounced as an open-mid back vowel [ʌ], and in compounds pronounced as a central close-mid vowel [ə] (schwa), like in, e.g., (the resulting copulative) saft og vand ‘juice and water’ > saft-e-vand juice (and) water ‘Danish lemonade, also made from fruits other than lemons’. Apart from the subject-predicate relationship between the parts of nominal compounds in Danish, the semantics may also express a number of other relations: a comparison, like ørnenæse ‘eagle nose = the nose visually looks like the beak of an eagle’, a relation of amounts, like blodsdråbe ‘(a) drop (of) blood’, a verb-object relationship erstatningskrav ‘claim for damages’ which may be expressed by a prepositional phrase, cf. krav om erstatning ‘claim for damages’. Clearcut dvandva compounds in Danish are often combinations that relate geographical parts of Denmark and parts of the rest of the world like Jylland-Fyn ‘Jutland-Funen’, and Sverige-Norge ‘Sweden-Norway’, if it is relevant to the topic of discourse. Adjectives may combine with nouns, and as a general rule the adjective specifies the noun by attributing a specific feature to the semantics of the noun: rødvin ‘red wine’,

140. Danish

2511

blåbær ‘blueberry’, halvår ‘half year’, etc. The Danish neuter gender (cf. [common gender] en ny bil ‘a new car’ vs. [neuter gender] et nyt hus ‘a new house’) is sometimes indicated by a -t- like in nytår ‘New Year’, and other transparent forms may be used as linking elements like in storetå ‘big toe’ (definite of stor ‘big’) and døvelærer deaf teacher ‘teacher for the deaf’ (definite and plural of døv ‘deaf’). Adverbs may be compounded with nouns in Danish like nutid ‘(the) present’, datid ‘(the) past’ (both mainly as Danish grammatical tense terms) utilising this pattern: the adverb nu ‘now’ + the noun tid ‘time’. But the most frequent pattern is placing adverbs in front of deverbal nouns (conversions): fremgang ‘progress’ ← frem ‘forward’ + gang ‘walking’, nedløb ‘drain’ ← ned ‘down’ + løb ‘to run’, udearbejde out work ‘work not at home’ ← ude ‘out’ + arbejde ‘to work’, and this pattern is also productive. The adverb ned ‘down’ as the first part of a nominal compound has, for instance, 7 entries in Nye ord i dansk 1955−1975 (NOD 1984), most of them being combinations with deverbal derivatives. Verb-noun compounds in Danish are rather frequent since they sometimes correspond semantically to sentences in which one of the nominal constituents is the counterpart of the noun and the verb is the attributive counterpart of the preceding verbal lexeme: svømmepige ‘swimming girl’ ← svømme ‘to swim’ + pige ‘girl’, in which the girl is the agent of the act of swimming. In general, the verb is an infinitive, and this also goes for compounds in which the semantics can be rephrased in a number of different ways: byggepris ‘building price (costs)’, byggeprojekt ‘building project’, byggelån ‘building loan’; byggepris, for instance, is prisen for et byggeri ‘the costs (or the price to be payed) for having something built’, but its basic semantics also makes it an attributive combination in that the term denotes a subset of (all kinds of) pris ‘price, costs’.

3.2. Adjectival compounds In Danish, adjectives may also be heads of compounds but in general they only combine with nouns and other adjectives: regnvåd ‘rain wet’, blodrød ‘blood red’ (both nounadjective compounds), råkold ‘raw cold’, rødgul ‘red yellow’ (both adjective-adjective compounds), and the general semantic function of the modifier is to attribute a feature to the head. Verbs may also combine with adjectives but such compounds are not very frequent. Appositional compounds based on adjectives are (normally hyphenated) words like rød-hvid ‘red (and) white’ and dansk-norsk ‘Danish-Norwegian’ since there is no modifier-head relation, even though, for instance, rødhvid may, as here, be spelled with no hyphen. The adjective-noun sequence can be inverted so that Danish also has nounadjective compounds like mundfuld ‘mouthful’ and håndfuld ‘handful’ in such phrases as en håndfuld penge ‘a handful (of) money’ in which håndfuld clearly is an adjective and not a noun. The second part -fuld is somehow productive in that later combinations like mappefuld ‘briefcase-ful’ have been attested, but the noun-adjective type of compound is not especially stable in that they tend to become lexicalised simplex words and used as figures of speech. Otherwise they tend to be combinations of nouns and adjectives formed with past participles: fremtidsrettet ‘future-oriented’, in which rettet is the past participle of the verb at rette ‘to direct, correct, straighten’, and the same pattern is found in, e.g., handlingslammet action-lamed ‘paralysed’, følelsesladet emotion-loaded ‘emotional’ and, the almost neoclassical, problemorienteret ‘problem-oriented’.

2512

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

3.3. Verbal compounds Danish compounds with verbal heads are not especially frequent and in many cases one may question whether it is plausible to call them compounds. Some prepositions and adverbs combine with verbs to make compounds: afbestille ‘to cancel’, afbryde ‘to interrupt’, afhente ‘to pick up’, henstille ‘to request’ (the directional adverb hen + stille ‘to place’), but a number of caveats seem to be appropriate. If all entries in Den Danske Ordbog beginning with af- are extracted, and furthermore all entries of which the string of letters af is not a prefix are excluded, then one will find in total 1,700 entries, i.e. compounds and derivatives. Out of these 251 are verbs, viz. compounds and derivatives of which a verb is a head. Admittedly, this is a fairly high number of verbs with the same morpheme attached in front of its root, but if one checks the frequency of all the tokens of the lexemes it appears that these words are not used very often. When checking occurrences in KorpusDK (2007), which comprises 56 million words, one might, by intuition, expect some af- + verb compounds to be rather frequent, e.g., afgøre ‘to decide’, afholde ‘to arrange, organise’, afvise ‘to refuse, reject’, but the hits are: afgøre: 6,608, afholde: 2,438, and afvise: 7,970. And the intuitively slightly more seldom found words offer these hits: afbestille ‘to cancel’: 54, afhente ‘to pick up’: 282, and the only comparatively frequent af-word of which a number are verbs is aftale ‘to agree / (an) agreement’: 15,083 hits (i.e. all verb forms and all (viz. the vast majority) noun forms). This indicates that there is a fairly high number of verbal (and other) combinations with af- but whether this morpheme is an adverb in a compound, whether it has a distinct meaning in all combinations, and whether it might more conveniently be characterised as a derivational prefix may be a matter of debate. Combinations with clear-cut nouns and adjectives, other verbs and clear-cut adverbs are quite rare, but they can be found and they can also be productive: e-handle or nethandle ‘to e- or net-trade’ (attested 1999), synsprøve ‘to eye test’ (attested 1892), and samhandle lit. ‘to together-trade’ ← sam lit. ‘together’ + handle ‘to trade’ (attested 1936).

3.4. Numerals It may be questioned whether numerals are compounds since, apart from their simple terms and their base numbers, numerals are formed ad hoc in the relevant context and, as such, are transient expressions, the syntax of which can, however, be studied in detail, cf. Götzsche (1991). Whereas Danish numerals up until 19 − like in many other languages − form a series of simplex words, one of the most characteristic features is shared with German and Faroese, viz. the sequence of which the two last integers (to the right) are expressed in numbers above 20, e.g., femogtyve ‘five-and-twenty = 25’, i.e. basically a coordinated phrase. Apart from this all other numbers are expressed from left to right, i.e. all decimals are mentioned after the rightmost digits 1−9 but all other intergers are mentioned before that, e.g., et tusind fem hundrede femogtyve ‘one thousand five hundrede and five-and-twenty = 1,525’ (according to Danish orthographical rules only numerals below 100 are written as unbroken strings of characters). The other special characteristic feature is the vigesimal formation of the numerals expressing the integers 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90, e.g., halvtreds ‘50’. As an etymological phenomenon halvtreds

140. Danish

2513

was, presumably, established in the Middle Ages as halv tredje sinde tyve ‘half third times twenty’ (i.e. ‘half third’ = 2.5 x 20), but phonetic reduction resulted in clipping and it ended up as the expression mentioned.

4. Derivation Danish derivation is characterised by a small number of affixes, of which only a few are productive. The set furthermore includes a minor number of derivational processes that most conveniently can be considered conversions since the lexemes actually have different vowels, originating in either (i-)mutation (umlaut) or gradation (ablaut) forms, but the different vowels make the only distinction in that the roots are otherwise (phonetically almost) identical. Such forms are, e.g., drab ‘(a) killing’ vs. dræbe ‘to kill’, and fund ‘(a) find’ vs. finde ‘to find’, of which the original derivational mechanism may be hard to determine but in which both of the verbs have the roots without the infinitive ending -e marking the imperatives: dræb and find respectively, which, in due course, make them and their corresponding nouns minimal pairs.

4.1. Nominal derivation There are a few productive nominal prefixes of Germanic origin in Danish: bi-, mis-, sær-, u-, ur- like in bifangst ‘by-catch’ (bi- from German bei), misbrug ‘abuse’ (from Old Norse mis-), særaftale ‘special agreement’ (from Old Norse sér ‘self-’, dative singular), ufred- not peace ‘war’ (from Old Norse u- or o-), and ursprog ‘original language’ (from German ur-). All of them can also be used as verbal prefixes and the meanings are: bi- ‘extra’, mis- ‘something bad or missing’, sær- ‘concerning self- = special’, u‘basically a negation but also used with the same meaning as mis-’, and ur- ‘original, very old’. A very small number of prefixes are on the brink of vanishing as productive nominal morphemes: van-, like in vanrøgt ‘neglect’, meaning ‘absence of something’, and ærke-, like in ærkebiskop ‘archbishop’, meaning ‘primary’ of the same origin as Old English ærce, which has been perceived by Danes as a genuine Danish prefix in combinations like ærkekøbenhavner ‘true inhabitant of Copenhagen (sometimes with a derogatory meaning)’. The number of neoclassical nominal derivatives in Danish is as substantial as that of other Western European languages. Hansen (1967, Vol. 3: 250−252) mentions 39 such different prefixes. Many of the combinations with these may, in contemporary Danish, be regarded as simplex words, for instance, combinations with kon- and in- whereas the frequency of others is fairly low: hypo- as a Danish prefix is found in 18 entries in DDO (2003−05), and all of them are technical terms, whereas auto- as a Danish prefix of a derivation seems to be found in 73 entries; but quite a lot of them are compounds in which auto- is the original abbreviated form of Danish automobil ‘car’ and therefore is a synonym of Danish bil ‘car’. This means that only a few expressions of auto- are genuine prefixes like in autograf ‘autograph’. On the other hand we find expressions like super- ‘super’, which has been in use for quite some time and seems to be spreading, and hyper- ‘hyper’, which seems to be quite fashionable in contemporary Danish lan-

2514

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

guage use. The dissemination of these morphemes is presumably an effect of influence from the terminologies of new technology and the influence of English on contemporary Danish. Beyond these, some of the more productive of these neoclassical prefixes are: anti-, eks-, kontra-, krypto-, maksi-, mini-, mono-, multi-, neo-, sub-, and ultra-. If the k- initial consonants and the -ks- are substituted with c- and -x- respectively the prefixes are intuitively understandable in an English context. As for productive suffixes there are some core expressions of Danish/Germanic origin that are highly efficient in forming new nouns, but most of them are to be found in the subcategories below.

4.1.1. Denominal nouns The typical Danish denominal noun-suffix is either a suffix denoting biological gender or a suffix referring to the presumed provenance of people. Even though the indication of somebody being a female practitioner of something, mostly vocational, has been in decline in Denmark since the 1970s, in which the principles of equal opportunities were in high esteem, one will still find some relics of biological gender in suffixes: sygeplejerske ‘nurse’ ← sygeplejer ‘male nurse’, in which -ske is the suffix denoting femininity; lærerinde ‘female teacher’ ← lærer ‘teacher’, in which -inde is the suffix denoting femininity. As for (assumed) provenance or verified residence of people, the general pattern is to replace the initial letter in the upper case with a letter in the lower case and add the suffix -er: københavner ‘Copenhagener’, londoner ‘Londoner’, stockholmer ‘person from Stockholm’, tysker ‘German’, svensker ‘Swede’. Whereas these expressions are fully integrated, there seems to be a reluctance to apply the pattern to provincial towns in Denmark in that some are accepted: frederikshavner ‘person from the middle sized town of Frederikshavn’, while others are avoided: *haderslever ‘person from Haderslev’, *holstebroer ‘person from Holstebro’, and are often rephrased in the style of the translations into English just offered, alternatively chosen as a nominal compound: slagelsebo in which bo denotes ‘an inhabitant’ in the town of Slagelse. Instead some Danish place names suffix neoclassical morphemes to their root: nibenit ‘person from the small town of Nibe’, and versions with -it and -vit are also found which are presumably formed on the basis of biblical words like sodomit ‘sodomite = inhabitant of Sodom’. Other such neoclassical suffixes used in Denmark are -aner, -ianer, -iner, and -ienser. One will find two productive suffixes that combine with nouns and keep their word class: -skab ‘(in a broad sense) -ship’ and -dom ‘(in a broad sense) -dom’, both of which are of Germanic origin (like in English). Some examples are: slægtskab ‘kinship’ and venskab ‘friendship’ (both mentioned by Petersen 1826: 5), borgerskab ‘citizenship’ (in the modern version in the compound statsborgerskab), moderskab ‘motherhood, maternity’ (both mentioned in Diderichsen 1972). These words belong to some core social and family-related roles in Denmark. Some denominal nouns with basically neoclassical suffixes are found: roderi ‘mess, untidiness, disorder’ is a peculiar word because the lexeme rod seems to have exactly the same meaning but is a deverbal noun (a conversion). The suffix -eri is of French (ultimately Latin) origin, which is why the stress in Danish is on the last syllable, and

140. Danish

2515

was adopted through Low German. However, it is perceived by Danes as an integrated suffix and therefore results in formations like anmelderi ‘the attitude or tendency to report unlawful actions to the authorities, and in public opinion not justified’, bogholderi ‘accounting’ and butikstyveri ‘shoplifting’ (in which the compound’s first part butik is a French loanword whereas tyv ‘thief’ is Germanic and goes back to Old Danish). Typically neoclassical denominal derivations with suffixes like -isme and -ist are in general either loanwords or calques, and a few are Danish (or Swedish) formations like bilisme ‘motoring’.

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Some typical deadjectival nominal suffixes in Danish are the same as those found in the denominal category: -skab ‘-ship’ and -dom ‘-dom’, whereas the most widespread suffix is -hed ‘-ness’ because of its extended meaning. Also -else ‘-ness’ and -ning ‘an entity characterised by the property denoted by the adjective’ are found but they are much less widespread. Some examples: klogskab ‘cleverness, (or maybe more adequate:) wisdom’ ← klog ‘clever, wise’ and dovenskab ‘idleness’ points to the fact that this suffix has a meaning much like that of -hed (with a Low German origin), i.e. as in analogous constructions like storhed ‘greatness’, mildhed ‘mildness’ and berømthed ‘celebrity’ ← berømt ‘famous’ (all from Diderichsen 1966 [1946]), and which is the most frequent deadjectival nominal suffix. Formations with -dom also denote a property but may refer to a state of affairs like in fattigdom ‘poverty’ ← fattig ‘poor’, visdom ‘wisdom’, and sometimes to faith, cf. kristendom ‘Christendom’ above (all from Diderichsen 1966 [1946]). As mentioned, -else means ‘-ness’ and so in a group of very few deadjectival nouns such as tykkelse ‘thickness’ and størrelse ‘magnitude’, and the same goes for -ing (or -ning) suffixes, which often combine with adjectives denoting characteristics in the landscape, e.g., lavning ‘minor area lower than the surroundings’ and skråning ‘slope’ ← skrå ‘sloping’, but is now spreading at the expense of -else in certain contexts, cf. afslappelse ‘relaxation’ (14 hits in KorpusDK 2007) vs. afslapning ‘relaxation’ (126 hits in KorpusDK 2007) ← afslappet ‘relaxed’. A small number of deadjectival nouns have been formed with the suffix -e like flade ‘(flat) surface’ ← flad ‘flat’, hede ‘heat (noun)’ ← hed ‘hot’ and mørke ‘darkness’ ← mørk ‘dark’, but language users will in general perceive these as simplex words.

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns Deverbal nouns are, by nature, much more common, and such nominalisations can be made with the suffixes -ing, -ning, -en, -else, -sel, mainly denoting the events or the activities associated with the verbs, or -er, mainly denoting the agents or the instruments carrying out the activity referred to. The general suffix applied for forming deverbal agent nouns is -er, a feature Danish shares with German and English: bage ‘to bake’ → bager ‘baker’, cf. German Bäcker ‘baker’ ← backen ‘to bake’; whereas the other East Scandinavian language Swedish has the corresponding suffix -are: bagare ‘baker’ ← baka ‘to bake’, the -g- spelling being

2516

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

an influence from Danish. The agent noun is not always derived from a transitive verb: lærer ‘teacher’ ← lære ‘to learn’. The suffix may also denote the attribute of a person who, for instance, suffers from a disease: bløder ‘bleeder, haemophiliac’ ← bløde ‘to bleed’, and furthermore it denotes things that are used to perform an action or activity (or process) of some kind: åbner ‘opener’ ← åbne ‘to open’, fryser ‘freezer’ ← fryse ‘to freeze’, (radio)modtager ‘(radio)receiver’ ← modtage ‘to receive’. In these, and other, contexts the suffix is highly productive. Moreover, there is the basically neoclassical suffix -eri, which may combine with roots that may not be easily distinguished as either nouns or verbs, and the peculiar Danish suffix -ert, which may combine with either nominal backformations or verbs. The -eri suffix appears in the word roderi mentioned above, and in ODS (1918−54) it is considered a deverbal noun from at rode ‘to make a mess of things’, from a Germanic origin meaning ‘to stir’, and, as mentioned above, Danish has the conversion rod ‘mess’, and the formation roderi has been introduced to denote a derogative attitude to the mess made by others. The same kind of pejorative use may be associated with the suffix -ert, like in bommert ‘blunder’ or in drønnert ‘oaf’, both deverbal nouns, but not necessarily. The suffix may be used in a neutral way to characterise entities with the properties inherent in the verbal meanings, for instance in a word like knallert ‘moped’ ← knalde ‘to bang (i.e. sounding)’, where the derived noun displays assimilated spelling because the -d- in the verb is “not pronounced”. These suffixes must be regarded as unproductive. The suffix -ing (or -ning depending on the phonotactic context) is the most frequently used expression for making deverbal nouns like, e.g., bagning ‘(the activity of) baking’, befæstning ‘fortification’ and samling ‘gathering, collection’ (both as the result of the activities). The next most frequent deverbal nominal suffix is -else, related to the much less frequent -sel. Also here, there is a tendency to substitute the suffix -else with the suffix -ing, which accordingly seems to have spread and become the most productive, for instance, in bekæmpelse ‘to fight (against sth.)’ → bekæmpning ‘fight (i.e. against sth.)’. The latter word is not recorded in DDO (2003−05) but a net-search will present a fairly high number of results. The least frequent deverbal suffix is -en, which is not especially productive. Many of these derivatives have an air of archaic or socially formal use like indgriben ‘interference’ (formal) or skubben ‘pushing’ (old-fashioned), instead of which the expression skubberi probably will be used more often. But it is not unproductive, because Danes have adopted the loanword to zap from English in the specific context of using remote controls and hence made the derivative noun zappen ‘zapping’. A number of neoclassical word forms present us with the question whether they are Danish derivations or not, because the suffixes are only found in neoclassical contexts and most of the words seem to be loanwords as such, for instance, direktør ‘director’ with the naturalised orthography -ør for French -eur. Other such suffixes are -ant, like in interessant ‘interesting’, -tion in konstruktion ‘construction’ and -and in konfirmand ‘candidate for (Christian) confirmation’.

140. Danish

2517

4.2. Adjectival derivation The characteristic feature of adjectival derivation in Danish is that there are a few productive prefixes and a small number of productive suffixes of Germanic origin, whereas there are quite many productive neoclassical prefixes and a few (maybe) productive neoclassical suffixes. The first group includes the prefix u- ‘un-’ (the form of the well-known Indo-European prefix) that may combine with Danish adjectives, like in utryg ‘insecure’, ulækker ‘unappetising’ (lækker from Low German) and usund ‘unhealthy’, and with adjectival past participles like usaltet ‘unsalted’, whereas a word form that is basically a past participle like uegnet ‘unfit’ is presumably now perceived by Danes as a simplex adjective (so that egnet ‘fit’ vs. uegnet ‘unfit’ are just unanalysed antonyms). The prefix urhas been mentioned above, and is productive but to a limited extent (for instance, in urmenneskelig ‘basically human’, attested late 19th century), and the prefix tve- ‘two’ is unproductive and found in a very small number of words in which it is normally not perceived as a prefix. The neoclassical prefixes are also found in most other Western European languages, and some of them combine freely with Danish roots: a- in amoralsk ‘immoral’, bi- in bilateral ‘bilateral’, hyper- in hyperaktiv ‘hyperactive’ and hyperfarlig ‘hyper-dangerous’, kvasi- in kvasifilosofisk ‘quasi-philosophical’, mono- in monoteistisk ‘monotheistic’, multi- in multifunctionel ‘multifunctional’ and multianvendelig ‘multifunctional’ (anvendelig is a deverbal adjective from the verb anvende ‘to use, apply)’, a loanword from German), non- in nonfigurativ ‘nonfigurative’, pro- in pro-amerikansk ‘pro-American’, pseudo- in pseudobegivenhed ‘pseudo-event’, and ultra- in ultralav ‘ultra-low’ (lav is from Old Norse lágr). Especially productive are the prefixes super-, which spread in Danish after World War II and mega- (especially after the 1980s), and they combine with almost all Danish adjectives, e.g., superfølsom ‘super-sensitive’ and megastor ‘mega-big’. There are a small number of fairly frequent adjectival suffixes in Danish, ending in either the letters -ig or -sk, and the not so frequent -et suffix, like in benet ‘bony’. The -ig (from Low German -ig, which has replaced the Old Norse -ugh) suffix is no longer productive, but it may be seen in parallel with -lig (from Old Norse -ligr ‘shape, (human) figure’), -agtig ‘like = similarity’ (from Low German achtich) and -mæssig ‘relating to’ (from German -mäßig), which are all productive. An unproductive suffix is -som ‘like’, which is not found in many combinations but some of them are found fairly frequently in use, for instance ligesom ‘like, in a way’ and opmærksom ‘attentive’. The remarks above on neoclassical nominal derivations also apply here.

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives The perceived -ig suffix is the most characteristic here, and we find, for instance, fornuftig ‘sensible, rational’ ← fornuft ‘sense, rationality’ and heldig ‘lucky’ ← held ‘luck’, and combining with the productive -lig: årlig ‘annual’ ← år ‘year’, skriftlig ‘written’ ← skrift ‘writing’, venlig ‘friendly’ ← ven ‘friend’. The suffix -(i)sk is combined with proper names, like københavnsk ‘related to Copenhagen’, or agent noun forms like krigerisk ‘belligerent’ ← kriger ‘warrior’.

2518

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

By nature, the suffixes -mæssig, denoting relation, and -agtig, denoting similarity are quite common with nouns, for instance, regelmæssig ‘regular’ ← regel ‘rule’, lovmæssig ‘legal’ ← lov ‘law’ and miljømæssig ‘environmental’ ← miljø ‘environment’. These derivations are often found in more formal contexts, whereas -agtig will combine with almost anything: fejlagtig ‘erroneous’ ← fejl ‘error’, nøddeagtig ‘nutty’ and skyggeagtig ‘shadowy’.

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Whereas the suffix -lig mainly combines with nouns and verbs the suffix -agtig will combine with almost all kinds of adjectives in Danish. The -lig suffix creates standard derivatives with colour terms like blålig ‘bluish’ and rødlig ‘reddish’ but will otherwise not be especially frequent, as opposed to combinations with -agtig (cf. also BrøndumNielsen 1951 [1917]), which will not only appear in attested forms like blødagtig ‘softy’ and storagtig ‘haughty’ but will also be found in ad hoc contexts, for instance, in the form of words like glatagtig ‘smooth-like’.

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Verbs combine freely with the minor set of adjectival suffixes, mainly -lig, -som, -bar, whereas the remarks above on neoclassical derivatives also apply for the suffix -abel and we find a fair number of deverbal derivations with -lig like behagelig ‘comfortable’ ← behage ‘to please’, drejelig ‘hinged’ ← dreje ‘to turn’, fordøjelig ‘digestible’ ← fordøje ‘to digest’ and læselig ‘readable’ ← læse ‘to read’. The suffix -som appears in følsom ‘sensitive’ ← føle ‘to feel’, tænksom ‘thoughtful’ ← tænke ‘to think’ and glemsom ‘forgetful’ ← glemme ‘to forget’, and the suffix -bar is found in, e.g., bærbar ‘portable’, flytbar ‘moveable’ and hørbar ‘hearable’.

4.3. Verbal derivation Verbal derivation in Danish is characterised by a number of semantically modifying prefixes and basically only one kind of productive verbal suffix. The prefixes include forms like for- (with a number of different meanings) in forhandle ‘to negotiate’ ← handle ‘to act, trade’, gen- ‘re-’ like in genbruge ‘to reuse’, mis- ‘mis-’ like in misbruge ‘to misuse’, sam- in a broad sense ‘togetherness’ like in samarbejde ‘to collaborate’ ← arbejde ‘to work’, and be- with a number of different meanings, some of them turning intransitives into transitives, like bekæmpe ‘to oppose, fight against’ ← kæmpe ‘to fight (intransitive)’. All of them are productive. The word form sær (mentioned above) in combinations may be perceived as either one of the base words in a verbal compound (with the meaning ‘special, odd’) or as a prefix (only meaning ‘special’) and it is found in expressions like særbehandle ‘to treat in a special way’ ← behandle ‘to treat’. The prefix re- ‘again’ is also found in Danish, but mostly in neoclassical derivatives that may be loanwords with the word revurdere ‘to reassess’ as an example of an exception.

140. Danish

2519

The suffixes have variations of the form -ere like -re or -e, which, as allomorphs, are identical to the infinitive ending of verbs in Danish, e.g., normally -e like in brug-e ‘to use’, -re like in sik-re (not a traditional analysis) ‘to secure’ and arrest-ere (also not a traditional analysis) ‘to arrest’, of which the -ere ending combines primarily with neoclassical roots; and as such may have the variational form -isere like in automatisere ‘to automatise’. This means that there is a pattern by means of which Danish may form a verb out of words from the two main other word classes, nouns and adjectives: kræve ‘to demand’ ← krav ‘demand’, lette ‘to ease’ ← let ‘easy’. There is one other suffix, viz. the inchoative -ne, found in, e.g., løsne ‘to loosen’ and gråne ‘being in the process of greying’, but it may most likely be considered unproductive. A specific problem arises concerning the classification of the Danish verbal derivations involving the suffix -e in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 below. Taking hus ‘house’ → at huse ‘to house’ as an example, the infinitive ending is traditionally not regarded as a derivational suffix since it is an inflectional ending. Two problems, then, are involved: the only morphological default vowel in Danish is -e- (as opposed to, for instance, Swedish), and this entails that sometimes inflections cannot be distinguished from derivations: huse is both the plural of et hus ‘a house’ and the infinitive at huse ‘to house’, so we cannot determine what the word means when found in isolation. When we assume that at huse is derived from et hus, the verb is in general perceived as a derivation because of the ubiquitous occurrence of the infinitive and other conjugated forms (the isolated imperative form hus ‘(you) house’ is almost unlicensed). The other problem is the pronunciation of the word forms: hus is pronounced with a glottal stop (“stød”), whereas in standard Danish huse has lost the “stød” and maybe has a longer vowel but the -e is not pronounced. For these reasons it may be seen as appropriate to consider the -e feature found in Danish orthography as a derivational suffix in this context.

4.3.1. Denominal verbs These form the primary set of verbal derivations; typical examples are: sejle ‘to sail’ ← sejl ‘sail’, avle ‘to breed’ ← avl ‘the activity of breeding’, huse ‘to house’ ← hus ‘(a) house’, all with -e, bladre ‘to browse’ ← blad ‘leaf’, with -re, importere ‘to import’ ← import ‘imports’, fingerere ‘to fidget’ ← finger ‘finger’, and programmere ‘to program’ (in which the double consonant is an effect of Danish orthography) with -ere. A recent development is fejle ‘to fail’ ← fejl ‘defect’, up until now mostly used in contexts on sports (transitive) and illness (intransitive) but now in broad meanings covered by the traditional expressions ‘making mistakes’ or ‘doing something wrong’: begå fejl ‘to make (a) mistake’.

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs This group does not consist of a large number of verbs, but there are a number of examples, also with non-neoclassical roots: fæste ‘to fasten’ ← fast ‘firm’ and rødme ‘to redden’; although quite many of the adjectives actually have neoclassical roots like in aktivere ‘to activate’ ← aktiv ‘active’ and modernisere ‘to modernise’ ← moderne

2520

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

‘modern’. Such cases present us with the traditional problem of which word form was the original loanword.

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs By nature, verbs are constructed out of verbs in order to modify their meaning, and in Danish this is accomplished by prefixation. As mentioned above there are in Danish quite a number of such prefixes that may either modify the semantics of the verb − and thereby sometimes make the verb contrast with the meaning of a phrasal verb with a corresponding post-positioned particle − or yield a verb with an abstract meaning. Some examples: påminde ‘to remind’ (= minde på), afsætte ‘to sell; dismiss’ (vs. sætte af ‘to drop off’), indsende ‘to submit’ (vs. sende ind ‘to send in’), udstille ‘to display’ (vs. stille ud ‘to put outside’), aftale ‘to make an agreement’ (*tale af), frakende ‘to deprive of’ (*kende fra), idømme ‘to sentence’ (vs. dømme i ‘to be a judge in (a case))’. Some verbal prefixes do not really change the meaning of the verb: at the face of it one may assume that there is a difference in the meanings of hindre ‘to hinder, hamper, impede’ vs. forhindre ‘to prevent, prohibit’, but in DDO (2003−05) their lexical meanings are presented as identical. However, there is a difference in their occurrences: forhindre occurs 2.5 times as often as hindre in KorpusDK (2007), and there are no contextual clues to explain that, but hindre may be perceived as a more archaic stylistic choice than forhindre.

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbial derivation is not a salient part of Danish morphology, but there are a few suffixes that can alter the syntactic function of primarily adjectives, so that they become adverbial sentence constituents or adjectival modifiers. The basic formation is made by affixing the Danish neuter gender -t to an adjective: hurtig ‘fast, quick’ → hurtigt ‘fast (adverb), quickly’, dårlig ‘bad’ → dårligt ‘badly’ and smuk ‘beautiful’ → smukt ‘beautifully’. Because of the phonotactic context some adjectives do not attach the -t suffix: glad ‘happy’ → glad ‘happily’ and krigerisk ‘belligerent’ → krigerisk ‘belligerently’. Another way of creating adverbs is using the suffix -vis, mostly by combining with adjectives: fornuftig ‘sensible, rational’ → fornuftigvis ‘sensibly’, mulig ‘possible’ → muligvis ‘possibly’; and also in combination with nouns like månedsvis ‘monthly’ (including the conjoining element -s-), but some, like månedsvis, can also function as adjectives: månedsvise indbetalinger ‘monthly payments’.

5. Conversion Because of the residual morphology in Danish, conversions are not formed as easily as in English. As mentioned above the form of an uninflected noun may be identical to

140. Danish

2521

that of a verb in the imperative − or identical to the infinitive form of a verb − and prototypical conversions are nouns converted from verbs or vice versa. Typically such nouns are constructed from verbs by picking up the imperative form (or the form including the infinitive ending -e; see section 5.1) and they typically denote acts or activities: sug ‘suck’ ← suge ‘to suck’, start ‘start’ ← starte ‘to start’ (from English; which came first is hard to determine), tag ‘hold, grasp’ ← tage ‘to take’, vask ‘wash’ ← vaske ‘to wash’, tro ‘belief’ ← tro ‘to believe’. Another typical way of creating nominal conversions in Danish is by using elliptic phrases where a noun after an adjective has been substituted with a slot where an expression from the interlocutors’ common experience is implicitly assumed to be present: de gamle (mennesker) ‘the old (people)’, thus de unge ‘the young’, de fattige ‘the poor’, and this mechanism is still productive, like in en bærbar (computer) ‘a portable (computer)’. Quite a number of words in Danish may be analysed as nominal conversions like, for instance, følge ‘train of attendants’ ← at følge ‘to follow’, and so might a number of parallel interpretations be applied to, for instance, arbejde ‘work’ ← at arbejde ‘to work’, tale ‘speech’ ← at tale ‘to speak’ and pleje ‘care’ ← at pleje ‘to take care of’. In many cases, however, it appears that the direction of conversion cannot be determined with certainty, however those mentioned here have all been documented in the past as nouns in historical contexts. Verbal conversions are not abundant, but in a few cases it is evident that a given verb has arisen by conversion: gafle ‘to take by use of a fork’ (now also pejoratively in figurative speech) ← gaffel ‘fork’.

6. Backformation Backformation is common in Danish, also in words with − more or less − identifiable neoclassical constituents. For instance, kondition ‘physical fitness’ → kondi and alu ‘aluminium’ ← aluminium are perceived by language users and lexicographers as backformations in that the syllables -tion and -ium are interpreted as suffixes. A traditional analysis says that the expressions mentioned are clippings and it may be hard to prove that -tion and -ium are productive, but the basis for the intuition is, among other things, that -ium can be substituted with the vowel combination -ie, like in akvarium = akvarie ‘aquarium, fish tank’. But also more genuinely Danish words give rise to backformations: adgangsbegræns+ning ‘restricted admission’ → adgangsbegrænse ‘to admission restrict’, overenskomstansætt+else ‘employment in accordance with labour market agreements’ → overenskomstansætte ‘to employ in accordance with labour market agreements’, varetægtsfængsl+ing ‘custody taking’ → varetægsfængsle → ‘to take into custody’. These words are almost technical terms and used in special contexts, the process of derivation being as follows: first, a noun like varetægtsfængsel ‘custody’ is turned into the noun varetægtsfængling denoting the procedure, and then, by deleting the suffix -ing, into the verb varetægsfængsle. But more vernacular words are also created by apheresis, for instance, hænger ‘trailer (vehicle)’ ← anhænger has had its prefix ancut off. A peculiar form of backformation in Danish is the creation of pseudo-English words based on misinterpretations of the English versions: aircondition ‘air condition-

2522

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

ing’. The letters of the -ing suffix are found in both languages, but in Danish it has been deleted.

7. Reduplication Danish does not exhibit reduplication in abundance, only a minor number of apparently genuine Danish onomatopoeic creations like klipklap ‘the sound of wooden shoes or horseshoes’ (developed into the word klipklapper ‘rubber sandals’ (by nature only in the plural)), and trip trap ‘the sound of clattering steps’. Other reduplications are, in general, not of Danish origin even though they have adapted Danish orthography: gakgak (from French gaga), pikpak ‘baggage’ (from Low German) and snik-snak ‘nonsense (derogative)’ (from Norwegian).

8. Blending We do find a few blended neologisms with Danish bases: fagforstening ‘derogative use referring to unions of workers’ ← fagforening ‘union of workers’ + forstening ‘fossilisation, petrifaction’ (attested three times in KorpusDK 2007), but most of the other 15 entries in the blend category in NOD (1984: 599) will mean not much to a contemporary Dane.

9. Clipping Clippings are found in Danish, mainly as back clippings like hetero ← heteroseksuel ‘heterosexual’, eks ← ekskone/mand ‘ex-wife/-husband’, demo ← demonstration ‘demonstration (of things for sale)’, but the problem with these analyses is that parallel formations are found (as neoclassical formations) in other languages and that resultant reductions may not be distinguished from prefixes. This can be illustrated by the word øko ‘eco-’, in contemporary Danish usually associated with ecology, since it is, in many contexts, hard to determine if it is used as part of a compound or as a (clipped) noun: øko mad ‘ecological food’ (compound), øko info ‘ecological information’ (blend), vis din holdning til ØKO ‘show your attitude to ECO’ (noun); or they should be categorised as abbreviations like obs ← observér ‘observe (imperative)’.

10. Word-creation Denmark has a fairly long tradition of coining neologisms in science and culture, and among the best-known examples are chemical expressions like ilt ‘oxygen’ ← ild ‘fire’ and brint ‘hydrogen’ ← brænde ‘to burn’ coined by H. C. Ørsted in 1814. Denmark has also developed a grammatical nomenclature based on Danish words (including calques)

140. Danish

2523

and suggested by language scholars back from the 18th century. The renowned linguist Rasmus Rask contributed substantially to this domain so that we have, for instance, afledning ‘derivation’, datid ‘preterite’ and forholdsord ‘preposition’. Also Otto Jespersen (cf. Galberg-Jacobsen 2011) proposed new Danish words, especially in the language sciences, but apart from a minor number (especially in phonetics) they did not survive. The vast majority of new words in Danish are loanwords or compounds for new things or activities, and one of the few occasions on which a new Danish word was coined was in the beginning of the 1990s when somebody suggested the expression nydansker ‘newDane’ when referring to more or less integrated immigrants.

11. References Andersen, Margrethe Heidemann and J. Nørby Jensen 2011 Nye ord, København 12.−13. april 2011, 119−132. København: Dansk Sprognævn. Bentzien, W[ilhelm] B. 1829 Dansk Grammatik til Brug for Skoler. 2nd ed. København: Reitzel. Brøndum-Nielsen, Johannes 1951 [1917] Trykforholdene ved Suffixet -agtig i Dansk. In: Studier og Tydninger, 41−45. København: Schultz. DDO = Den Danske Ordbog 2003–05 6 Vol. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Diderichsen, Paul 1966 [1946] Elementær Dansk Grammatik. 3rd ed. København: Gyldendal. Diderichsen, Paul 1972 Essentials of Danish Grammar. København: Akademisk Forlag. Galberg-Jacobsen, Henrik 2011 Ortografi og orddannelse hos Otto Jespersen. RASK 33: 43−76. Götzsche, Hans 1991 On the logic and syntax of numerals in Danish and Swedish. In: Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (ed.), Papers from the Twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Reykjavik, June 14–16, 1990, 78−89. Reykjavík: Linguistic Institute, University of Iceland. Gudiksen, Asgerd 1994 Om begrebet samdannelse. In: Mette Kunøe and Erik Vive Larsen (eds.), 5. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, 81−91. Århus: Aarhus Universitet. Gudiksen, Asgerd 1999 Om mediopassiv i danske ømål. In: Peter Widell and Mette Kunøe (eds.), 7. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, 129−138. Århus: Aarhus Universitet. Hansen, Aage 1967 Moderne Dansk. 3 Vol. København: Det Dansk Sprog- og Litteraturselskab, Grafisk Forlag. Hansen, Erik and Lars Heltoft 2011 Grammatik over det Danske sprog. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Holt, Jens 1956 Nogle bemærkninger om derivationen i moderne dansk sprog. In: Svend Aakjær, Kr. Hald, Aage Hansen and Niels Aage Nielsen (eds.), Festskrift til Peter Skautrup 21. januar 1956, 195–201. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus. Høysgaard, Jens 1747 Accentuered og Raisonnered Grammatica. In: Henrik Bertelsen 1979 [1915−29] Danske Grammatikere. Vol. 4, 249−487. København: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.

2524

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Holbergordbog 1981−88 Holberg-Ordbog. Ordbog over Ludvig Holbergs Sprog. 4 Vol. København/Oslo: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Jacobsen, Lis 1913 Sprogets Forandring. København: Hagerup. Jarvad, Pia 1995 Nye ord − hvorfor og hvordan? København: Gyldendal. KorpusDK 2007 A database of Danish texts. http://ordnet.dk/korpusdk [last access 10 July 2015]. Mikkelsen, Kristian 1911 Dansk Ordföjningslære. København: Lehman & Stages Forlag. NOD = Nye ord i dansk 1955−1975 1984 København: Gyldendal. Nye Ord 1955–98. Ordbog over nye ord i dansk 1955–1998 1999 København: Dansk Sprognævn. http://nyeordidansk.dk/noid/help.htm [last access 10 July 2015]. ODS = Ordbog over det danske Sprog 1918−54 28 Vol. & 5 supplementary Vol. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Petersen, Niels 1826 Dansk orddannelseslære. Odense: Hempel. Skautrup, Peter 1968 [1944] Det danske Sprogs Historie. Vol. 1. København: Det Dansk Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Skautrup, Peter 1968 [1947] Det danske Sprogs Historie. Vol. 2. København: Det Dansk Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Skautrup, Peter 1968 [1953] Det danske Sprogs Historie. Vol. 3. København: Det Dansk Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Skautrup, Peter 1968 Det danske Sprogs Historie. Vol. 4. København: Det Dansk Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Thorsen, Peder Kristian 1919 Saabys Retskrivnings Ordbog. København: Gyldendalske Boghandel.

Hans Götzsche, Aalborg (Denmark)

141. Norwegian

2525

141. Norwegian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Neoclassical word-formation Backformation, clipping and other special word-formation processes References

Abstract Composition (compounding) and derivation are the main means of Norwegian wordformation; conversion, backformation, clipping and blending are of varying importance but on the whole less common. Compounding is generally right-headed. A great variety of derivational patterns exist, some of which are productive, whereas others are not, although they may be represented by a considerable number of lexemes. Suffixation predominates in nouns and adjectives, and prefixes are more common in verbs. A number of productive affixoids are developing. Word-formation patterns of foreign, in particular Middle Low German origin, are common, as are neoclassical formations consisting of Greek or Latinate elements. The two main Norwegian varieties Riksmål/Bokmål and Nynorsk are distinguished by a number of differences.

1. Introduction Historically, Norwegian belongs to the western branch of North Germanic, together with Faroese and Icelandic. Norwegian and Insular Scandinavian long ago ceased to be mutually intelligible. Present-day Norwegian is part of the Mainland Scandinavian linguistic area, which also comprises Danish and Swedish and is characterized by a high degree of mutual intelligibility among the languages. Norwegian comes in the two official varieties Bokmål (BM) ‘book language’ and Nynorsk (NN) ‘New-Norwegian’ (cf., for instance, Haugen 1966 and Vikør 2001 on the past and present Norwegian language situation). Between 1380 and 1814 Norway and Denmark formed an increasingly close political union. From the mid-sixteenth century, the written language of Norway was Danish. This situation persisted even after 1814, when Norway was reestablished as an independent nation in a personal union with Sweden and with the Swedish king as head of state. Around the middle of the nineteenth century, the self-taught linguist Ivar Aasen (1813− 1896) presented a new native Norwegian written norm based on conservative western and midland dialects, which he called Landsmål ‘language of the country’. Aasen’s Landsmål gained official recognition in 1885 and was officially codified in 1901. However, Danish, for which the names Dansk-Norsk ‘Dano-Norwegian’ and Riksmål (RM) ‘language of the realm’ came to be used, remained predominant. In 1929, Landsmål was

2526

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

officially renamed Nynorsk; and Riksmål became Bokmål. The term Riksmål remained in use as the name of an independent, “unofficial” literary norm not subject to official reforms. In 1907 and 1917, a substantial number of native Norwegian characteristics were introduced into Riksmål to bring the written language closer to native Norwegian pronunciation and morphology. Later reforms aimed at a merger of Bokmål and Nynorsk in a future Samnorsk ‘common Norwegian’ and caused considerable uproar in the population. By now, former language conflicts have largely subsided, after further Bokmål reforms in 1981 and 2005, through which Samnorsk policies were reversed and the Samnorsk project finally abolished. The current official Bokmål and Nynorsk norms both allow for substantial variation. With few and peripheral exceptions, “unofficial” Riksmål today practically forms a subset of official Bokmål options. Of the approximately five million speakers of Norwegian, 5−10 % adhere to Nynorsk as their personal written language; the rest, 90 % or more, including the majority of dialect speakers, prefer Bokmål, mainly of a “moderate” (“conservative”) non-Nynorsk(and non-Samnorsk-) oriented variety. The coexistence for more than four hundred years of written Danish and spoken Norwegian resulted in a Norwegian-based pronunciation of literary Danish, which dated back to the eighteenth century and was used by an educated minority of the population. This Danish-influenced variety of spoken Norwegian was to become the historical foundation of the written Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål tradition that took shape through the reforms of 1907 and 1917. Bokmål/Riksmål still has much in common with Danish. (The 91 years of the Swedish-Norwegian union lasting until 1905 had no similar impact on the development of Norwegian.) Danish has been an important channel for the introduction of a large number of Middle Low German (MLG) and later High German (G) loanwords into Norwegian. Landsmål/Nynorsk originally had a strong nationalist and purist bent, disallowing specific German and Danish word-formation patterns, in particular those involving the prefixes and suffixes an-, be-, er-, -het, -else. Words with these affixes are often referred to as “anbehetelse-words” (Heggelund 1985). The rejection of certain foreign elements together with a general preference for native Norwegian patterns has caused a number of differences between Bokmål/Riksmål on the one hand, and Nynorsk on the other. However, an increasing number of anbehetelse-words have been accepted into Nynorsk, due to their widespread occurrence in dialects as well as in Norwegian everyday speech in general (cf. Nes 1983; Skjekkeland 1999). Most major Norwegian grammars contain sizeable word-formation chapters, starting with the Dano-Norwegian grammars of the eighteenth century; in Løkke (2009 [1855]) more than a third of the text deals with word-formation, and Knudsen (2002 [1856]: 203−263) offers a detailed chapter on the subject. The two pioneering Landsmål grammars of Ivar Aasen both contain fairly comprehensive word-formation chapters (Aasen 1996 [1848]: 70−105; 1965 [1864]: 218−263). This tradition is continued in twentieth-century grammars, for Landsmål/Nynorsk, for instance, by Heggstad (1931: 52−78), Beito (1970: 105−151) and Venås (1990: 37−48). Næs (1972: 376−402) and Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo (1997: 53−136) cover both official varieties. Johannessen (2001: 136−167), Berkov (1997: 163−175) and Wangensteen (2015: 1558−1565) provide useful brief summaries.

141. Norwegian

2527

There are two monographs, Vinje (1973) and Leira (1992). The latter provides an extensive alphabetical list of affixes and grammatical endings. The role played by wordformation in extending the Norwegian lexicon to cope with new naming tasks is profusely documented in Leira (1982) and Guttu and Wangensteen (2012).

2. General overview Compounding is the most important, and affixal derivation the second most important, word-formation strategy in Norwegian; clipping is common, conversion and backformation are fairly well represented, and blending and reduplication are marginal. Compounds are either determinative or copulative. The by far more common determinative compounds are grammatically right-headed; the first, leftmost constituent is a modifier that influences the second constituent, the head, semantically: rødvin [[rød ‘red’]ADJ/MODIFIER [vin ‘wine’]N/HEAD]N ‘red wine’. Determinative compounding is recursive; a compound may function as part of a compound, either as its first or as its second element. There is hardly any definite limit to the structural complexity that may be attained in this way, but compounds with more than three or four constituents, or more than two hierarchical levels, are relatively rare. Many present-day compounds derive from syntactic phrases, in particular from noun phrases with a prenominal genitive. In the course of the univerbation process, the genitive ending of the first, prenominal element is reinterpreted as a linking element, which may spread to contexts where it could not have originated morphologically: natterstid night-LINK-LINK-time ‘nighttime’, where both linking elements derive from old genitives. Coordinative (or copulative) compounds do not have the hierarchical semanticogrammatical word structure of determinative compounds but, as a rule, the constituents of coordinative compounds appear in a fixed, conventionalized order, whereby the rightmost constituent carries the morphological marking of the whole. Derivation manifests itself as affixation, which is either prefixation or suffixation. (Norwegian does not have productive infixation.) Prefixes do not in general affect the grammatical status of the base but modify or alter its meaning. This also holds for some cases of suffixation, but most suffixes change the word class of the base. The base of a derivational process is most often a word but syntactic phrases, in particular NPs and PPs, may also function in this way. Complex bases are not the result of univerbation prior to derivation; univerbation is rather an integral aspect of the derivational process. The distinction between compounding and affixation is in general fairly clear-cut but debatable cases do exist. It is well known that a number of suffixes derive historically from ancient lexemes by a process of compounding or univerbation, whereby the second element loses its word integrity. Similar processes are at work in the modern language. Affixoids, i.e. prefixoids and suffixoids, may result from nouns and adjectives combining with a series of head or modifier constituents in compounds, without, however, losing their capacity to function as free morphemes as well. In verbs, a distinction is drawn between, on the one hand, elements that can only appear before verb stems: bestille ‘to order’ and, on the other, prepositional and adverbial elements that either appear in the same preverbal position: innstille ‘to adjust, cancel’,

2528

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

or as a free postverbal morpheme: stille inn ‘to adjust’. The former type (bestille) is naturally regarded as prefixation and the latter (innstille) as compounding. In preverbal position, there is thus linear convergence of verbal compounding and prefixation. The word-formation strategies mentioned so far generate longer lexemes. Conversion, as “implicit” in contrast to “explicit”, affixal derivation, does not, but it may add morphology, or induce a different morphology. Deciding which word class is basic and which is derived may be problematic. Clipping and blending result in shorter lexemes. Clipping is productive; blending is stylistically marked and on the whole marginal. Compounding and derivation are basically forms of patterning on the word-level; some patterns are productive and some are unproductive (cf. Johannessen 2001: 148− 151, 165−166). It should, however, be kept in mind that a pattern with a large number of instantiations may be unproductive in that it does not in general engender new instantiations freely (e.g., verbs with the German prefixes be-, er-, for-, unn-). Semantically, individual instantiations of both main word-formation strategies may be compositional or non-compositional (or “unmotivated” or “lexicalized”; Johannessen 2001: 154). With regard to compositionality, allowance has to be made for a certain pragmatic flexibility of interpretation. For instance, the nominal compound fiskedame ‘fish lady’, may, depending on circumstances, mean a woman selling fish, or known to be habitually eating fish, or to be making pictures of or movies about fishes, or presumably a number of other things. Moreover, a subgroup of a pattern may be semantically consistent, whereas other instantiations of the pattern are not (e.g., transitivizing be- verbs like besvare ‘to reply to’ vs. svare ‘to reply’ as against a host of other be- verbs). The English glosses and translations provided in the following may shed some contrastive light on such matters. Word-formation patterns occasionally contain elements that do not exist as “free forms” outside a specific compound or derivation, cf., for instance, tytte- as first element in tyttebær ‘cowberry’. Lack of an independently existing base can be observed in connection with a variety of derivational patterns, cf. artilleri ‘artillery’ (*artill), pussig ‘peculiar’ (*puss), unektelig ‘indisputably’ (*nektelig), bekrefte ‘to confirm’ (*krefte), erklære ‘to declare’ (*klære), forfjamse ‘to confuse’ (*fjamse). This is a common characteristic of much foreign and neoclassical word-formation.

3. Composition Composition is the potentially recursive combination of two words into one. Determinative compounds have a strictly binary hypotactic structure; coordinative compounds are non-hypotactic and in principle allow for expansion beyond two constituents.

3.1. Nominal compounds Table 141.1 provides a survey of determinative nominal compounds based on modifier categories:

141. Norwegian

2529

Tab. 141.1: Norwegian nominal compounds with a simplex first constituent NN

[[stein]N [brudd]N]N

stone-break

‘quarry’

PropN

[[ola]Prop [bukse]N]N

Ola-trousers

‘jeans’

AdjN

[[stor]Adj [kiosk]N]N

big-kiosk

‘convenience store’

VN

[[skrive]V [bord]N]N

write-table

‘desk’

DetN

[[hver]Q [dag]N]N

every-day

‘weekday’

ProN

[[hun]Pro [kjønn]N]N

she-gender

‘feminine gender’

QN

[[mange]Q [kant]N]N

many-arc

‘polygon’

NumN

[[ti]Num [kamp]N]N

ten-fight

‘decathlon’

PN

[[til]P [tro]N]N

to-faith

‘confidence’

AdvN

[[nå]Adv [tid]N]N

now-time

‘present’

IntN

[[hurra]Int [gutt]N]N

hurra-boy

‘rogue’

AnswN

[[nei]Answ [mann]N]N

no-man

‘opponent (of Norwegian membership in the EU)’

Occasionally, the first element is a noun phrase or a prepositional phrase, cf. Table 141.2 (the first column specifies the composition of the first element). Tab. 141.2: Norwegian nominal compounds with a phrase as first constituent Adj+N

[[[varmt]Adj [vann]N]NP-s [tank]N]N

warmNEUT.SGwater-tank

‘hot water tank’

Q+N

[[[ingen]Q [mann]N]NP-s [land]N]N

noman-s-land

‘no man’s land’

Num+N

[[[seksti]Num [år]N]NP-s [dag]N]N

sixtyyear-s-day

‘sixtieth anniversary’

P+NP

[[[under]P [vann]N]PP-s [båt]N]N

underwater-s-boat

‘submarine’

In recursive compounding, the complex element is to the right (1b) or to the left (1c): (1)

a. simplex + simplex: b. simplex + complex: c. complex + simplex:

ordbok word-book lommeordbok pocket-wordbook ordbokpolitikk wordbook-policy

‘dictionary’ ‘pocket dictionary’ ‘dictionary policies’

Complex noun phrases may in principle combine to form hierarchical compounds with several levels (Johannessen 2001: 157−160), e.g., skogsarbeiderfagforeningsmøtevedtak: (2)

[[[[[skog]N-s-[arbeider]N]N [[fag]N [forening]N]N]N-s-[møte]N]N [vedtak]N]N forest-s-worker-trade-union-s-meeting-decision ‘decision of a meeting of the forest-workers’ trade union’

2530

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

In compounds with a nominal first constituent, linking elements (cf. Table 141.3) deriving from historical genitive endings are common but by no means universal (Leira 1992: 56−62; and the comprehensive list on pp. 211−252). Bokmål/Riksmål make use of -s-, -e-, -er-, -(e)n-, -ns-, of which the first two are by far the most frequent; Nynorsk in addition has -a- and -ar-. Tab. 141.3: Linking elements in Norwegian compounds with a nominal first constituent a) Bokmål/Riksmål and Nynorsk -s-

[[skog]N-s-[arbeider]N]N

forest-LINK-worker

‘lumberjack’

-e-

[[barn]N-e-[hage]N]N

child-LINK-garden

‘kindergarten’

-er-

[[rett]N-er-[gang]N]N

court-LINK-going

‘court procedure’

-n-

[[øye]N-n-[lege]N]N

eye-LINK-leech

‘ophthalmologist’

-ns-

[[øye]N-ns-[lyst]N]N

eye-LINK-lust

‘a thing of beauty’

-ie-

[[med]N-ie-[dekning]N]N

media-LINK-coverage

‘media coverage’

-a-

[[ferd]N-a-[minne]N]N

journey-LINK-memory

‘travel recollection’

-ar-

[[rett]N-ar-[gang]N]N

court-LINK-going

‘court procedure’

b) Nynorsk

In Latinate words the ending -ium, as in medium, is replaced by -ie-. (Exceptions are chemical terms as in, e.g., radiumhospital ‘radium hospital’.) The present-day distribution of linking elements is in part idiosyncratic but a number of tendencies can still be identified (Akø 1989; Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo 1997: 68−74). Some, but by no means all, compounds consisting of two simplex words have an -sas linking element, cf. bilhjul ‘car wheel’ vs. slottsmuseum castle-LINK-museum ‘museum showing royal exhibits’. Compounds without a linking element in general carry the falling-rising tone 2: 2bilhjul, but compounds with a linking element that represents an original prenominal genitive have the simple falling tone 1: 1slottsmuseum; cf. the following minimal pairs: 2rådhus ‘town hall’ vs. 1rådsmøte ‘council meeting’, 2årgang ‘volume’ vs. 1årsmøte ‘annual meeting’. Certain first constituents ending in a specific way usually disfavor the use of linking elements: those ending in a palatal fricative: lunsjbord ‘lunch table’, or in a dental: frokostblanding ‘cereals’; or in a vowel: gapahuk ‘lean-to’; or in -el, -en, -er/NN -ar: nøkkelknippe ‘key ring’, våpenskap ‘weapon closet’, snekkerverksted ‘carpenter’s shop’, NN musikklærarlag ‘music teachers association’. However, numerous exceptions exist, cf. tillitsbrudd ‘breach of confidence’, fylkesordfører ‘chairman of the county council’, eksamensfest ‘graduation celebration’, odelsjente ‘female holder of an allodial right’, alderstrygd ‘old age pension’, as well as all first constituents with the suffix -sel: fødselsveer ‘labor pains’. It is often the case that a simplex first constituent has no linking element, whereas a correspondingly headed composite first constituent has one, cf. vinflaske ‘wine bottle’ vs. brennevinsflaske burn-wine-LINK-bottle ‘liquor bottle’. The linking element can here be seen as disambiguating the internal structure of the compound, e.g., flertallsbøyning [[flertall]-LINK-[bøyning]] ‘plural inflection’ (not *[[fler] [tallbøyning]]). Exceptions

141. Norwegian

2531

without a linking element exist, e.g., leverpostei ‘liver paté’ as well as gåseleverpostei ‘goose liver paté’. Other types of compounds generally require a linking element (but exceptions do exist): the first constituent ends in one of the derivational suffixes -(n)ing, -dom, -else, -het, -sel (see above), -skap or -nad (more typically NN), -leik (NN): utdanningssystem ‘educational system’, bygningsarbeider ‘construction worker’, barndomshjem ‘childhood home’, frihetstrang ‘thirst for liberty’, farskapssak ‘paternity suit’, søknadsskjema ‘application form’, kjærleiksbrev ‘love letter’; similarly after the Latinate suffixes -ment, -sjon, -tek, -tet and the ending -um: regimentsfane ‘regimental banner’ (but dokumentmappe ‘briefcase’), nasjonsbygging ‘nation-building’, biblioteksbygning ‘library building’, autoritetsangst ‘fear of authority’, plenumsforedrag ‘plenary lecture’. The linking element -e- derives either from old genitive singular or plural endings. In cases like prestegård priest-LINK-farm ‘vicarage’, it derives from the singular, and in fuglefjell bird-LINK-mountain ‘nesting cliff’ from the plural. The minimal pair gudstro ‘belief in God’ vs. gudetro ‘belief in (heathen) gods’ shows an opposition between -swith singular and -e- with plural meaning. Occasionally the same lexeme occurs both without and with a linking -e-, as in guttebarn ‘boy child’ vs. guttunge ‘young boy’. A constituent may lose the linking -e- it requires as a first, simplex element of a compound: cf. bjørnejakt bear-LINK-hunt ‘bear hunt’ when it functions as the head of a compound that is the first constituent of a more complex compound: isbjørnjakt [[[is ‘ice’]N [bjørn ‘bear’]N]N [jakt ‘hunt’]N]N ‘polar bear hunt’. Adjectival first constituents most often appear in stem form: fristed free-place ‘sanctuary’ vs. fritt sted ‘free place’ with the neuter singular form fritt of the adjective; but there are compounds with an agreeing adjective as first constituent (Leira 1992: 66− 69), cf. with the “strong”, indefinite form of the adjective: tungtvann heavyNEUT.SG-water ‘deuterium oxide’; or with the “weak”, definite form: førsteplass ‘first place’, eldrebolig ‘retirement home’. Verbal first constituent are infinitives (but cf. Leira 1994): gågate ‘pedestrian street’, sovepille ‘sleeping pill’; or verb stems: stigbøyle step-ring ‘stirrup’, spaserstokk ‘walking stick’; or, more rarely, a perfect participle: bruktbil used-car ‘second-hand car’. Coordinative nominal compounds are comparatively rare: klokkeradio ‘clock radio’, prinsgemal ‘prince consort’. A related type is written with a hyphen and both its constituents are inflected for definiteness: marxismen-leninismen ‘the Marxism-Leninism’.

3.2. Adjectival compounds Determinative adjectival compounds have an adjective as head and some other element as modifier. Cf. Table 141.4. Adjectival compounds with a participial head are common. They include past participles: knivdrept knife-killed ‘stabbed to death’, bløtkokt ‘soft boiled’, as well as present participles: epokegjørende ‘epoch-making’, velmenende ‘well-meaning’, godtroende good-believing ‘gullible’. In the latter case, an adjectival first constituent may show the adverbially used neuter singular: fintfølende fineNeut.Sg-feeling ‘sensitive’. Linking elements occur: verdensberømt world-LINK-famous ‘world famous’, folkerik people-LINK-rich ‘densely populated’.

2532

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 141.4: Adjectival compounds in Norwegian AdjAdj

[[stor]Adj [fin]Adj]Adj

great-fine

‘very fine’

NAdj

[[krem]N [gul]Adj]Adj

cream-yellow

‘cream-coloured’

ProAdj

[[selv]Pro [god]Adj]Adj

self-good

‘conceited’

NumAdj

[[tre]Num [dobbel]Adj]Adj

three-double

‘triple’

VAdj

[[verne]V [verdig]Adj]Adj

preserve-worthy

‘worthy of preservation’

PAdj

[[over]P [moden]Adj]Adj

over-ripe

‘overripe’

AdvAdj

[[ikke]Adv [kommunistisk]Adj]Adj

not-communist

‘non-Communist’

In some adjectival compounds the first constituent serves as an intensifier. It can be a noun: svinedyr swine-expensive ‘extremely expensive’; a verbal root: blendvakker dazzle-beautiful ‘dazzlingly beautiful’; an adjective: rådyr raw-expensive ‘extremely expensive’; or an element with uncertain word-class affiliation: dyvåt ‘soaking wet’, styrtrik ‘extremely rich’. Coordinative adjectival compounds appear to occur more frequently than their nominal counterparts, e.g., rødgrønn ‘red-green (referring to a coalition of Socialist and agrarian political parties)’ and even blåblå ‘blue-blue (referring to a coalition of two rightwing parties)’. Some coordinative compounds are hyphenated, reflecting a less advanced state of lexicalization, e.g., den engelsk-tyske ordboken ‘the English-German dictionary’, where the order of the two adjectival constituents reflects the organization of the book.

3.3. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds have a verb as head and a verb or, far more often, some other element as modifier. Cf. Table 141.5. The VV type is rather rare. It is, however, a moot question whether verbs like lureløpe fool-run ‘to run tactically in a way that fools the other contestants’ should be considered determinative or coordinative. In, e.g., brennemerke burn-mark ‘to brand’ the former analysis seems more appropriate. Linking elements occur occasionally: kostnadsberegne cost-LINK-calculate ‘to estimate’. In the VV type, it is debatable whether the final e of a verbal first element is the infinitive ending -e or a linking element -e- appended to the verb root, cf. snorksove snore-sleep ‘to sleep deeply and snore’ without a final e. A number of verbal compounds are related to VP-structures. The adjectival element of the AdjV type often corresponds to the co-predicative in small-clause constructions: rengjøre clean-make ‘to cleanse’, svartmale black-paint ‘to vilify’. The NV type may reflect object constructions, cf. planlegge ‘to plan’ and legge planer ‘to lay plans’. PV and AdvV compounds are productive and numerous. Cf. Table 141.6. The prepositions and adverbs of Table 141.6 form verbal compounds like avvikle ‘to liquidate’ and påstå ‘to claim’ or phrasal verbs like legge ned ‘to liquidate’ and stå på ‘to keep going’ (cf. Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo 1997: 81−87). In many cases, a certain

141. Norwegian

2533

Tab. 141.5: Verbal compounds in Norwegian VV

[[tulle]V [spille]V]V

fool-around-play

‘to play with no serious intent’

AdjV

[[fri]Adj [ta]V]V

free-take

‘to exempt’

NumV

[[tre]Num [doble]V]V

three-double

‘to triple’

NV

[[plan]N [legge]V]V

plan-lay

‘to plan’

AdvV

[[ut]Adv [sette]V]V

out-set

‘to postpone’

PV

[[av]P [gjøre]V]V

off-do

‘to decide’

[P+N]V

[[[i]P [gang]N]PP] [sette]V]V

in-going-set

‘to set in motion, start’

Tab. 141.6: Prepositional and adverbial first elements in Norwegian verbal compounds a)

Prepositions:

av ‘of’, etter ‘after’, fra ‘from’, gjennom ‘through’, i ‘in’, med ‘with’, mellom ‘between’, mot ‘against’, om ‘about’, over ‘over’, på ‘on’, til ‘to’, under ‘under’, ved ‘at’

b)

Adverbs in directional as well as non-directional form:

directional -0̸ vs. non-directional -e: inn/inne ‘inside’, opp/oppe ‘up’, ut/ute ‘outside’

c)

Adverbs in directional form:

frem/fram (BM, NN) ‘forth’, bort ‘away’, BM hjem/NN heim ‘home’, ned ‘down’

d)

Adverbs lacking a directionality–non-directionality opposition:

att (NN) ‘again’, igjen ‘again’, sammen ‘together’, tilbake ‘back’, unna ‘away’

e)

Univerbated prepositional phrases:

tilrette ‘into right shape, function’, ivare ‘in care’, tilintet ‘to naught’

combination of a verbal root and a preposition or adverb allows for only one of the types. For instance the following only exist as verbal compounds: etterligne ‘to imitate’, omringe ‘to surround’, oppdage ‘to discover’, overbevise ‘to convince’, undervise ‘to teach’, utfordre ‘to challenge’. On the other hand, certain combinations are only found as phrasal verbs: kneppe igjen ‘to button (up)’, blusse opp ‘to flare up’, låse opp ‘to unlock’. In exceptional cases a verb root is restricted to use in a compound: innskrenke ‘to reduce’ (*skrenke). In numerous cases a combination of a preposition or adverb and a verb root occurs both as a verbal compound and as a phrasal verb. The two formations may be synonymous: bortfalle/falle bort ‘to cease to apply’, motsi/si imot ‘to contradict’, sammenføye/ føye sammen ‘to unite’; or their meanings may differ: avslå (en søknad) ‘to reject (an application)’ vs. slå av (lyset) ‘to turn off (the light)’, fremgå (av forklaringen) ‘to be evident (from the testimony)’ vs. gå frem (fra siste meningsmåling) ‘to increase (since the last opinion poll)’, gjengi ‘to reproduce’ vs. gi igjen (vekslepenger) ‘to give back

2534

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

(change)’, omvende (til islam) ‘to convert (to Islam)’ vs. vende om ‘to turn around’, oppnå ‘to achieve’ vs. nå opp (til taket) ‘to reach up (to the ceiling)’, overgå (sin forgjenger) ‘to surpass (one’s predecessor)’ vs. gå over (til noe annet) ‘to turn (to something else)’, pålegge (noen en oppgave) ‘to assign (a task to someone)’ vs. legge på (prisen) ‘to add (to the price)’, tilta ‘to increase’ vs. ta til (med noe nytt) ‘to begin (with something new)’. Abstract meaning tends to favor the interpretation as a compound as opposed to a phrasal verb with concrete meaning (e.g., pairs like fremgå/gå frem, gjengi/gi igjen, omvende/vende om, etc.). Nynorsk tends to favor phrasal verbs in certain cases where Bokmål/Riksmål has a compound: frasi (seg) ‘to renounce’, utrede ‘to elucidate’, oppløse ‘to dissolve’ vs. NN seie frå (seg), greie ut, løyse opp. In Bokmål/Riksmål other stylistic considerations may play a role; compounds are felt to belong to a higher, more literary register than phrasal verbs. Thus a distinction can be made between høste inn eplene ‘to harvest the apples’ and innhøste erfaringer ‘to gain experience’, or between more formal utrede saken ‘to elucidate the case (with a view to further administrative or legal treatment)’ and more informal greie ut om saken ‘to explain the matter’. Certain grammatical factors tend to induce compounding. An adjectival present participle corresponding to a phrasal verb is a compound: trenge (seg) på force (oneself) on ‘to be pushy’ → påtrengende ‘pushy, insistent’, henge sammen hang together ‘to be connected’ → (en) sammenhengende (katastrofe) ‘(a) continuous (catastrophe)’; and this also applies to adjectival past participles: skye til cloud to ‘to cloud over’ → tilskyet toclouded ‘overcast’, kaste bort ‘to throw away’ → bortkastet away-thrown ‘wasted’. Verbal nouns, including agent and instrument nouns, that are derived from phrasal verbs follow the same pattern and appear as compounds: rydde opp ‘to tidy up’ → opprydding ‘tidying-up’, bruke igjen use again ‘to recycle’ → gjenbruk ‘recycling’, gå igjen go again ‘to haunt’ → gjenganger again-goer ‘ghost’, trekke opp pull up ‘to open’ → opptrekker up-puller ‘bottle opener’. Compounding is in general more common in participles than in the other verb forms. One may well prefer the phrasal infinitive finne opp ‘to invent’, the present finner opp ‘invents’ and the past fant opp ‘invented’, but still prefer the perfect har oppfunnet ‘has invented’ or the passive er oppfunnet ‘is invented’. The phrasal verb komme hjem ‘to come home’ allows for both the phrasal participle kommet hjem and the compound hjemkommet, although no infinitive *hjemkomme lit. ‘home-come’, exists.

3.4. Adverbial, prepositional and conjunctional compounds A series of composite local adverbs have der- ‘there’ as first element and a preposition or adverb as second element: deretter ‘thereafter’, dernest ‘after that’, etc. Some of these are common to Bokmål/Riksmål and Nynorsk, such as deretter, derfor ‘therefore’, dermed ‘therewith’, deriblant there-amongst ‘among these’. Others are more likely to occur in literary Bokmål/Riksmål: derav ‘thereof’, deri ‘therein’; in Nynorsk prepositional phrases are used instead: av det ‘of it’, i det ‘in it’. Nynorsk has di- as first constituent also: difor ‘therefore’, dinest ‘thereafter’, in certain combinations alternating with the old genitive relic dess-: diverre/dessverre ‘unfortunately’; Bokmål has dess- in dessverre and dessuten ‘besides’.

141. Norwegian

2535

In addition, there exist parallel formations with interrogative hvor- ‘where’. Their use in the present-day language is restricted, apart from hvorfor ‘why’ and hvordan, hvorledes ‘how’; their Nynorsk counterparts are kvifor/korfor and korleis. Other examples, like hvorpå ‘whereafter’ and hvormed ‘wherewith’, were formerly used as relatives but are now perceived to be literary or even obsolete. A common type of composite preposition consists of a local adverb and a preposition: oppover ‘upwards’, nedover ‘downwards’, inntil ‘until’, innunder ‘underneath’, innom ‘in’, frempå ‘at the edge of’, nedpå ‘down at’, utpå ‘out at’. A subtype has the preposition for as last element and a special combinatorial adverb form ending in -en (or in -a in Nynorsk and certain varieties of Bokmål): innenfor ‘inside’, utenfor ‘outside’, ovenfor ‘above’, nedenfor ‘below’, nordenfor ‘north of’, sønnenfor ‘south of’. Similar (mostly Nynorsk) adverbial formations are compounds with -att ‘back’: heimatt ‘back home’; and formations with -fra ‘from’ (and NN -frå) parallel to prepositional (and adverbial) -for formations: nordenfra ‘from the north’, NN utanfrå ‘from the outside’, etc. (Cf. Leira 1992: 71−73.) These complex prepositions are also used adverbially. Conjunctional compounds are dersom ‘if’ and fordi ‘because’ (NN av di).

3.5. Numerals The (semantic) class of numerals consists of expressions representing different grammatical types, not all of which belong in the domain of word-formation. (Cf. Askedal 1997 for a general discussion.) They are treated together here for practical reasons. The lower numerals from ‘one’ to ‘twelve’ are simplex words: BM/RM én or en (common gender) or NN ein (masculine), NN/BM ei (feminine), BM/RM ett (neuter), NN eitt (neuter) ‘one’, to ‘two’, tre ‘three’, fire ‘four’, fem ‘five’, seks ‘six’, sju or RM syv ’seven’, åtte ‘eight’, ni ‘nine’, ti ‘ten’, elleve ‘eleven’, tolv ‘twelve’. The numerals from ‘thirteen’ to ‘nineteen’ all end in -ten, etymologically related to the word for ‘ten’: tretten ‘thirteen’, fjorten ‘fourteen’, femten ‘fifteen’, seksten [sɛjstən] ‘sixteen’, sytten [søtːən] ‘seventeen’, nitten ‘nineteen’. ‘Twenty’ is either tjue or RM tyve, and ‘thirty’ tretti or RM tredve. The words for ‘forty’ to ‘ninety’ all end in -ti, cf. ti ‘ten’: førti ‘forty’, femti ‘fifty’, etc. Before 1951, Norwegian complex numerals like ‘fifty-one’, etc. followed the Danish and German pattern, placing the lower number before the ten, i.e. to og femti, or written together, toogfemti, ‘fifty-two’, etc. In 1951, a reform was carried through, prescribing the opposite, Swedish and English order, hence femtito, etc. The forms syv, tyve and tredve were abolished from the official language norm as being incompatible with the new ordering in two-digit numerals, which corresponds to the order in written Arabic numerals. The older pattern is, however, still quite commonly used and part of the Riksmål norm. Hundre ‘hundred’ and tusen ‘thousand’ are used without a plural ending in complex numerals and after other quantifiers: fem hundre bøker ‘five hundred books’, flere tusen mennesker ‘several thousand people’, but take a plural ending in other environments: tusener sang med ‘thousands joined in the singing’. Million ‘million’, milliard ‘billion’, etc. are regular nouns that always take a plural ending when preceded by a numeral higher than ‘one’.

2536

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

4. Derivation Affixes are numerous. Foreign affixes are borrowings from classical languages or, above all, from Middle Low German and later on from High German, often by way of Danish mediation. The unstressed prefixes be-, er-, for-, ge- and the stressed prefixes an-, biand unn- are, historically, something of an anomaly, as their North Germanic equivalents were lost in the pre-literary period (Dal 1929). Although present in a large number of lexemes, they can hardly be considered productive in Norwegian. In contrast, certain suffixes of documented or alleged foreign origin, above all -het (NN -heit), -else and -ning, are highly productive.

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Suffixation The suffixes in Table 141.7 are common and productive to a different degree. Tab. 141.7: Derivational suffixes in Norwegian nouns Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived noun

a) Native and naturalized German -dom

V N Adj

lære mann rik

‘to learn’ ‘man’ ‘rich’

lærdom manndom rikdom

‘learning’ ‘manhood’ ‘wealth’

-ing

V N Adj

banne utland feig

‘to swear’ ‘abroad’ ‘cowardly’

banning utlending feiging

‘swearing’ ‘foreigner’ ‘coward’

-ling

V N Adj

lære mann svak

‘to learn’ ‘man’ ‘weak’

lærling mannsling svekling

‘apprentice’ ‘manikin’ ‘weakling’

-ning

V N Adj

lese slekt død

‘to read’ ‘family’ ‘dead’

lesning slektning dødning

‘reading’ ‘relative’ ‘ghost’

-sel

V N Adj

skremme ferd blyg

‘to frighten’ ‘journey’ ‘shy’

skremsel ferdsel blygsel

‘threat’ ‘traffic’ ‘shyness’

-skap

V N Adj

kjenne venn gal

‘to know’ ‘friend’ ‘mad’

kjennskap vennskap galskap

‘knowledge’ ‘friendship’ ‘madness’

-is

V

snakke

‘to speak’

snakkis

Adj

grov

‘rude’

grovis

‘popular conversation topic’ ‘dirty joke’

141. Norwegian

2537

Tab. 141.7: (continued) Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived noun

-er

V Num

mure to

‘to lay bricks’ ‘two’

murer toer

‘bricklayer’ ‘number to’

-else

V

nedlegge

‘to close down’

nedleggelse

‘closure’

-en

V

nøle

‘to hesitate’

nølen

‘hesitation’

-ert

V

rope

‘to shout’

ropert

‘megaphone’

-aner

N

Luther

(proper noun)

lutheraner

‘Lutheran’

-dømme

N

konge

‘king’

kongedømme

‘kingdom’

-eser

N

Malta

(proper noun)

malteser

‘Maltese’

-i

N

idiot

‘idiot’

idioti

‘idiocy’

-ianer

N

Hauge

(proper noun)

haugianer

‘adherent of H. N. Hauge’

-iker

N

alkohol

alkoholiker

‘alcoholic’

-inne

N

lærer

‘teacher’

lærerinne

‘female teacher’

-leser

N

Kongo

(proper noun)

kongoleser

‘Congolese’

-ske

N

forbryter

‘criminal’

forbryterske

‘female criminal’

-as

Adj

frekk

‘impertinent’

frekkas

‘impertinent person’

-het

Adj

svak

‘weak’

svakhet

‘weakness’

-nad

V Adj

freiste mogen

‘to try’ ‘mature’

freistnad mognad

‘attempt’ ‘maturity’

-sle

V Adj

godtgjere redd

‘to compensate’ ‘frightened’

godtgjersle redsle

‘compensation’ ‘fear’

-ar

V

fiske

‘to fish’

fiskar

‘fisherman’

-heit

Adj

mogleg

‘possible’

moglegheit

‘possibility’

-leik

Adj

stor

‘large’

storleik

‘size’

-løyse

Adj

arbeidslaus

‘unemployed’

arbeidsløyse

‘unemployment’

-semd

Adj

varsam

‘cautious’

varsemd

‘cautiousness’

b) Nynorsk

c) Romance and Neoclassical foreign -eri

V N Adj

fråtse kjendis kokkett

‘to gormandize’ ‘celebrity’ ‘coquettish’

fråtseri kjendiseri koketteri

‘gluttony’ ‘celebrity cult’ ‘coquetry’

-anse

V Adj

konkurrere arrogant

‘to compete’ ‘arrogant’

konkurranse arroganse

‘competition’ ‘arrogance’

-ikk

V Adj

replisere logisk

‘to reply’ ‘logical’

replikk logikk

‘comment’ ‘logic’

2538

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 141.7: (continued) Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived noun

-ine

V Adj

studere blond

‘to study’ ‘blond’

studine blondine

‘female student’ ‘blonde’

-isme

N Adj

kapital sosial

‘capital’ ‘social’

kapitalisme sosialisme

‘capitalism’ ‘socialism’

-ist

N Adj

trompet nordisk

‘trumpet’ ‘Nordic’

trompetist nordist

‘trumpeter’ ‘scholar of Nordic studies’

-ant

V

representere

‘to represent’

representant

‘representative’

-ent

V

studere

‘to study’

student

‘student’

-ment

V

abonnere

‘to subscribe to’

abonnement

‘subscription’

-or

V

investere

‘to invest’

investor

‘investor’

-sjon

V

reparere

‘to repair’

reparasjon

‘repair’

-trise

V

ekspedere

‘to attend to’

ekspeditrise

‘female shop assistant’

-ør

V

massere

‘to massage’

massør

‘masseur’

-øse

V

massere

‘to massage’

massøse

‘masseuse’

-ar

N

arkiv

‘archive’

arkivar

‘archivist’

-esse

N

prins

‘prince’

prinsesse

‘princess’

-ett

N

støvel

‘boot’

støvlett

‘(winter) boot’

-itet

Adj

intens

‘intense’

intensitet

‘intensity’

A number of derived nouns have a phrasal base (Leira 1992: 41−42). Cf. the types illustrated in Table 141.8. Tab. 141.8: Norwegian nominal derivations with a phrasal base N+V

[[[ord]N [dann-]V]VP-else]N [[[brev]N [skriv-]V]VP -er]N

word-form-else letter-write-er

‘word-formation’ ‘correspondent’

Adv+V

[[[vel]N [gjør-]V]VP -er]N

well-do-er

‘benefactor’

Adj+N

[[[tung]Adj [vekt-]N]NP-er]N

heavy-weight-er

‘heavyweight fighter’

Num+N

[[[to]Num [akt-]N]NP -er]N

two-act-er

‘play in two acts’

The bases N+V and Adv+V imply a shifting of the N or Adv from its postverbal VPposition into the position of a first element in compounds as a first stage in the derivation: danne ord ‘to form words’ → ord-dann- → orddannelse/orddanning. In such cases, the removal of the first part of the word results in a word with different meaning: dannelse ‘manners’, skriver ‘scribe’, vekter ‘security guard’, or a non-existing word form: *gjører, *akter.

141. Norwegian

2539

The suffix -eri is of Romance origin but its widespread use in German is highly relevant in a Danish and Norwegian context. While common in Danish, -en is by and large felt to be old-fashioned; instead, -ing is used: nøling. The most common means of forming a g e n t and i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s , including names for professions and certain animals, is -er/NN -ar: svømmer/svømmar ‘swimmer’, fisker/fiskar ‘fisherman’. In semantically similar nouns not derived from verbs, NN has partly -ar: snikkar ‘carpenter’, hammar ‘hammer’, and partly, like Bokmål, -er: skipper ‘skipper’, lekter ‘scow’, bever ‘beaver’. The less common -ling suffix is also mainly agentive. The f e m i n i n e suffixes -inne and -ske have fallen into general disuse as a result of successful feminist argumentation against discriminatory gender difference marking. Male as well as female teachers are called lærer ‘teacher’, and a female and a male nurse are both sykepleier ‘nurse’, both of which are common gender (masculine) words (cf. Leira 1992: 27). A c t i o n n o u n s show several differences between Bokmål/Riksmål and Nynorsk. The most commonly used suffix is -ing. The relationship between -ing and -ning is partly one of free alternation and partly one of complementary distribution (cf. Alhaug 1973; Leira 1992: 85−89, with lists of word pairs on pp. 253−256, in Bokmål/Riksmål on pp. 257−292, and in Nynorsk on pp. 293−297). The alternation of -ing and -ning is also a Bokmål/Riksmål vs. Nynorsk issue. In both Bokmål/Riksmål and Nynorsk, -ing is the unmarked variant, which is in principle not subject to specific phonological restrictions. In Nynorsk, -ing is in general preferred and -ning disfavored, but a number of -ning nouns have proved indispensable and are therefore accepted, in particular a number of everyday terms for which Nynorsk has no term of its own, such as belysning ‘lighting’, erstatning ‘replacement’, forretning ‘business’, pakning ‘gasket’, demning ‘dam’, etc. Verb stems ending in -l, -r, -n(n), -nd, the clusters -Cr, -Cl, a vowel (not including diphthongs) or the derivational suffix -er- require -ing, as in stjeling ‘stealing’, nynning ‘humming’, sending ‘transmission’, bedring ‘improvement’, padling ‘paddling’, sying ‘sewing’, parkering ‘parking’, reflecting Danish distributional rules (Alhaug 1973: 17, 205). Verb stems ending in -d favour -ning: tilberedning ‘preparation’, as do stems having older, Danish phonological shape: inndragning ‘confiscation’, flyvning ‘flight’ vs. official BM inndraing (rare), flyging ‘flying’. Many -ing formations are ambiguous: regjering means both ‘governing’ and ‘government’, and maling both ‘act of painting’ and ‘paint’. On the other hand, synonymous alternants are common in Bokmål, e.g., omlegging and omlegning ‘reorganization’, planlegging and planlegning ‘planning’, etc. There is a tendency for -ing words to be more concrete and -ning words more abstract, cf. heving av skipet ‘lifting of the ship’ vs. hevning av renten ‘increase in the interest rate’. The distinction between action meaning and non-actional meaning is important, cf. pakking ‘act of packing’ vs. pakning ‘package’, dekking ‘act of covering’ vs. dekning ‘coverage’, bygging ‘act of building’ vs. bygning ‘edifice’. Lexicalizations in -ning include a number of nouns with no obvious semantic link to the corresponding verb: rette ‘to correct’ → retting ‘act of correcting (also: correction)’ vs. retning ‘direction’, holde ‘to hold’ → holding ‘holding (back)’ vs. holdning ‘attitude’. The -ing vs. -ning issue is partly a political one: people who favor a rapprochement between Bokmål on the one hand, and Nynorsk and spoken dialects on the other, tend

2540

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

to prefer -ing; hence a form like bearbeiding ‘revision’ in spite of the traditional preference for -ning after -d. Despite the frequent use of -else in the dialects, this suffix has long been frowned upon in Nynorsk quarters because of its alleged Middle Low German origin. In Nynorsk -ing is recommended instead: NN fortviling for fortvilelse ‘despair’, similarly utdanning for utdannelse ‘education’, deltaking for deltagelse ‘participation’. Some of these -ing forms are used in Bokmål too, e.g., utdanning, bearbeiding for bearbeidelse, drøfting for drøftelse ‘discussion’. Still, a few common -else words are accepted in Nynorsk as well, e.g., spøkelse ‘ghost’, betennelse ‘infection’, stiftelse ‘foundation’. The -sel suffix is common to Riksmål/Bokmål and Nynorsk: fengsel ‘prison’, fødsel ‘birth’; but Nynorsk also uses -sle instead, cf. BM ferdsel ‘traffic’, hengsel ‘hinge’ vs. NN ferdsle, hengsle. Some Nynorsk -sle words have no BM-sel equivalent: rørsle ‘movement’ vs. BM bevegelse, røynsle ‘experience’ vs. BM erfaring; and, inversely, some BM -sel words have no NN -sle equivalent: trussel ‘threat’, etterspørsel ‘demand’ vs. NN trugsmål, etterspurnad. Most -sel/-sle words have a verbal base but words with an adjectival base occur, too, cf. the above blygsel, redsle. Another characteristic Nynorsk suffix is -nad (Hellevik 1984): fagnad ‘joy’, lesnad ‘reading’. A number of common -nad words have entered Bokmål (Hellevik 1984: 121− 127): bunad ‘folk costume’, kostnad ‘cost’, merknad ‘comment’, søknad ‘application’, dugnad ‘(privately initiated) cooperative effort’. Nynorsk -nad often corresponds to BM/ RM -ning: merknad vs. bemerkning, verknad ‘effect’ vs. virkning. The choice of a particular suffix often serves semantic differentiation: søk ‘search’ vs. søking ‘act of seeking’ vs. søkning ‘stream (of applicants)’ vs. søknad, NN freisting ‘temptation’ vs. freistnad ‘attempt’. Verbs with the suffix -ere often correspond to two action nouns, one ending in -(a)sjon, the other in -ing, cf. redigere ‘to edit’ and redigering ‘act of editing’ vs. redaksjon ‘editorial office, staff’. The latter type tends to have a more specialized meaning going beyond the act of doing something. Norway is a by and large sparsely populated country where local and regional identities are important. Linguistically, this is reflected in a variety of i n h a b i t a n t n a m e s , with a toponymic base and mostly with a suffix shown in Table 141.8 (or an expanded or otherwise modified version thereof; cf. Leira 1992: 190−210), meaning ‘person from …’: Kristiansand → kristiansander, Trøndelag → trønder, Bergen → bergenser; Voss → vossing, Kvam → kvemming, Nordland → nordlending, Nøtterøy → nøttlending, Nes → nesning, Flekkefjord → flekkefjæring, Hallingdal → halling, Hardanger → harding, Sarpsborg → sarping, Bærum → bæring, Kvinnherad → kvinnhering, Bø → bøhering, Bodø → bodøværing, Arendal → arendalitt, etc. Further expansions and stem changes are found in names for inhabitants of foreign countries: Amerika → amerikaner ‘American’, Italia → italiener ‘Italian’, Montenegro → montenegriner ‘Montenegrin’, Kina → kineser ‘Chinese’. The by far most important suffix for deriving nouns from adjectives, including past participles, is the q u a l i t y - n o u n suffix -het: fordomsfull ‘prejudiced’ → fordumsfullhet ‘narrow-mindedness’, egnet ‘suitable’ → egnethet ‘suitability’. Its NN variant -heit was originally shunned and -dom, -leik (Jakobsen 1970) and -skap recommended instead: fri ‘free’→ fridom ‘freedom’, ven ‘beautiful’ → venleik ‘beauty’. In recent years, however, a considerable number of -heit words have been accepted, like nyheit ‘news’ (despite the existence of nyhende lit. ‘new-happening’) and leilegheit ‘apartment’. -heit

141. Norwegian

2541

derivations from adjectives ending in -sam and -laus are still rejected and -semd and -løyse are required instead: einsam ‘lonely’ → einsemd ‘loneliness’, vonlaus ‘hopeless’ → vonløyse ‘hopelessness’ (NN nouns ending in -løyse could alternatively be analysed as -e derivations with -løys- as an allomorph of the suffixoid -laus). (Cf. Nes 1983, Heggelund 1985, Vikør 1990.) A few nouns aspire to suffixoid status. As a free morpheme tøy (cf. G Zeug) means ‘cloth’, which is obviously not the case in words like kjøretøy drive-tøy ‘vehicle’ and syltetøy. jam-tøy ‘jam’. Cf. also -glede ‘joy’ in kjøre-, abeidsglede ‘joy of driving, working’, etc.; and the numerous composite words ending in -mål ‘language’, such as Riksmål, Bokmål, talemål ‘spoken language’, folkemål ‘popular language’, hovedmål ‘main language’, etc. (Askedal 1996), which owe their existence to the complex Norwegian language situation outlined in section 1.

4.1.2. Prefixation Given the categorial options in Table 141.6 and various derivational mechanisms discussed below, there seems to be no good reason for assuming a larger number of nominal prefixes beyond those listed in Table 141.9. For- ‘before’ differs semantically from the homonymous preposition in expressing local or temporal precedence. The unstressed prefix ge- is limited to semantically opaque German loanwords. Nouns with other unstressed or stressed German prefixes, like betaling ‘payment’, erklæring ‘statement’, forklaring ‘explanation’, ankomst ‘arrival’, usually stand in a derivational relationship to a related verb. In the literature several other elements are listed among the prefixes, such as prepositions, e.g., etter- ‘after’ in ettersmak ‘aftertaste’, fra- ‘from’ in fratrekk ‘deduction’, til‘to’ in NN tilhøve ‘circumstance’, NN åt- ‘to’ in åtgaum ‘enthusiasm’, and adverbs, e.g., frem/fram ‘forth’ in fremtid/framtid ‘future’, inne ‘in’ inneklær ‘indoor clothes’, ut ‘out’ in utfall ‘result’, as well as singular first elements like intensifying sil- in silregn ‘steady, pouring rain’ and hope- in hopehav ‘close relationship’. These are not different from similar compound elements and should be considered as such.

Tab. 141.9: Derivational prefixes in Norwegian nouns Prefix biformissamsæruurvananbege-

Base word sak studie tanke handling merke rett skog tro − − −

‘thing’ ‘study’ ‘thought’ ‘action’ ‘mark’ ‘justice’ ‘forest’ ‘belief’

Prefixed noun bisak forstudie mistanke samhandling særmerke urett urskog vantro anstrøk beskjed gebyr

‘trifle’ ‘draft’ ‘suspicion’ ‘interaction’ ‘distinguishing feature’ ‘injustice’ ‘primeval forest’ ‘disbelief’ ‘flair’ ‘message’ ‘fee’

2542

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

A few nouns seem to be developing into prefixoids, such as the antonyms topp- ‘top’ and bunn- ‘bottom’ in words like topplassering ‘top ranking’ and bunnplassering ‘bottom ranking’. Other nouns, such as drømme- ‘dream’, kjempe- ‘giant’, function as intensifying prefixoids: drømmereise ‘dream voyage’, kjempeskuffelse ‘gigantic disappointment’.

4.2. Adjectival derivation 4.2.1. Suffixation The suffixes vary with regard to what kind of base category they combine with. Cf. Table 141.10. Tab. 141.10: Derivational suffixes in Norwegian adjectives Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived adjective

a) Native Norwegian and naturalized German -bar

V N Adj

straffe frukt åpen

‘to punish’ ‘fruit’ ‘open’

straffbar fruktbar åpenbar

‘punishable’ ‘fertile’ ‘evident’

-en

V N Adj

gå gull fæl

‘to go’ ‘gold’ ‘awful’

gåen gyllen fælen

‘exhausted, wrecked’ ‘golden’ ‘frightened’

-lig

V N Adj

mistenke vane rød

‘to suspect’ ‘habit’ ‘red’

mistenkelig vanlig rødlig

‘suspicious’ ‘common’ ‘reddish’

-som

V N Adj

føle folk var

‘to feel’ ‘people’ ‘cautious’

følsom folksom varsom

‘sensitive’ ‘crowded’ ‘cautious’

-sk

V N

glemme forbryter

‘to forget’ ‘criminal’

glemsk forbrytersk

‘forgetful’ ‘criminal’

-før

V N

skrive arbeid

‘to write’ ‘work’

skrivefør arbeidsfør

‘skilled at writing’ ‘fit for work’

-ig

V N

lyde trass

‘to obey’ ‘spite’

lydig trassig

‘obedient’ ‘obstinate’

-et(e)

V N

grine rute

‘to whine’ ‘square’

grinete rutet(e)

‘grumpy’ ‘checkered’

-aktig

N Adj

tyv grå

‘thief’ ‘grey’

tyvaktig gråaktig

‘thievish’ ‘greyish’

-isk

N

dyr

‘animal’

dyrisk

‘beastly’

-messig

N

hensikt

‘intention’

hensiktsmessig

‘appropriate’

-sommelig

N

fred

‘peace’

fredsommelig

‘peaceable’

141. Norwegian

2543

Tab. 141.10: (continued) Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived adjective

b) Nynorsk -al

V N Adj

blåse frost sjuk

‘to blow’ ‘frost’ ‘sick’

blåsal frostal sjukal

‘tending to be windy’ ‘tending to be frosty’ ‘sickly’

-leg

V N Adj

tru dag kjær

‘to believe’ ‘day’ ‘dear’

truleg dagleg kjærleg

‘probable’ ‘daily’ ‘affectionate’

-ut

V N

grine tosk

‘to whine’ ‘fool’

grinut toskut

‘grumpy’ ‘foolish’

-sam

V N

hjelpe moro

‘to help’ ‘fun’

hjelpsam morosam

‘helpful’ ‘funny’

-ug

V N

lyde hand

‘to obey’ ‘hand’

lydug hendug

‘obedient’ ‘deft’

-ag

N

(ON heill

‘happiness’)

heilag

‘holy’

-voren

N

tjuv

‘thief’

tjuvvoren

‘thievish’

c) Romance and Neoclassical foreign -abel

V

spandere

‘to treat to’

spandabel

‘free-handed’

-ibel

V

reversere

‘to reverse’

reversibel

‘reversible’

-al

N

norm

‘norm’

normal

‘normal’

-ant

N

intrige

‘intrigue’

intrigant

‘scheming’

-ell

N

form

‘form’

formell

‘formal’

-iv

N

konstrukt

‘construct’

konstruktiv

‘constructive’

-uell

N

sex

‘sex’

seksuell

‘sexual’

-ær

N

element

‘element’

elementær

‘elementary’

-øs

N

religion

‘religion’

religiøs

‘religious’

-id

−

perfid

‘perfidious’

-il

−

senil

‘senile’

A number of adjectives show a linking element before the suffix (Leira 1992: 63−64, 66). Derived adjectives with a phrasal base are fairly common (Leira 1992: 40). Cf. Table 141.11. Tab. 141.11: Norwegian adjectival derivations with a phrasal base Adj+N

[[[bar]Adj [hode]N]NP-et]Adj

bare-head-et

‘bareheaded’

Det+N

[[[denne]Det [side]N]NP-ig]Adj

this-side-ig

‘mundane’

Num+N

[[[tre]Num [mast]V]NP-et]Adj [[[fire]Adj [år]N]NP-ig]Adj

three-mast-et four-year-ig

‘three-masted’ ‘four years old’

2544

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

The so-called present participle ending in -ende/NN -ande, as in levende mennesker ‘living people’, en rosende anmeldelse ‘a laudatory review’, is traditionally considered a non-finite verb form but is in important respects more adjective-like: it usually occurs without the complements that accompany the other simple or periphrastic verb forms and, in contrast to the past participle, it does not form part of grammaticalized auxiliary constructions. This may invite interpretation of -ende/-ande as an adjective-forming suffix (Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo 1997: 118−119). Most -ende derivations have active meaning but passive meaning is also found: drikkende ‘drinkable’. The element -løs/NN -laus ‘-less’ in words like stilløs ‘devoid of style’ and NN tvillaus ‘doubtless’ is close to suffix status. Adjectives ending in -løs/NN laus and -fri ‘-free’ are negatively and positively connotated, respectively, the former meaning ‘devoid of’ and the other ‘free from’ or ‘available for’, cf. ansvarsløs ‘irresponsible’ vs. ansvarsfri ‘free from responsibility’ and forskningsfri ‘available for research’. The linking element betrays its origin in a genitive-governing adjective. Suffixoids combining with a series of first constituents are -vennlig ‘friendly’: lærevennlig ‘easy to learn’, fotvennlig ‘good for the feet’; -bevisst ‘conscious’: miljøbevisst ‘concerned about the environment’. In Nynorsk, the suffixoid -rett ‘right’ can replace the suffix -messig, cf. regelrett ‘regular’ for regelmessig. Other suffixoids are -full ‘full’, -rik ‘rich’, -riktig ‘right’, -villig willing ‘appropriate’.

4.2.2. Prefixation The by far most common of the prefixes listed in Table 141.12 is the negational u- ‘un-, non-’. Tab. 141.12: Derivational prefixes in Norwegian adjectives Prefix

Base word

Prefixed adjective

a) Native and naturalized German all-

mektig

‘mighty’

allmektig

‘almighty’

mis-

fornøyd

‘content’

misfornøyd

‘dissatisfied’

u-

fin

‘fine’

ufin

‘vulgar’

ur-

gammel

‘old’

urgammel

‘ancient, antediluvian’

van-

før

‘able’

vanfør

‘disabled’

ør-

liten

‘small’

ørliten

‘very small’

an-

−

anstendig

‘decent’

be-

−

beskjeden

‘modest’

ge-

−

gemen

‘base, vile’

b) Nynorsk ov-

stor

‘large’

ovstor

‘very large’

ål-

grå

‘grey’

ålgrå

‘grey all over’

141. Norwegian

2545

The adjectives with an unstressed German prefix are semantically opaque and do not permit segmentation. (Neoclassical prefixes will be dealt with in section 6.) As prefixoids one may consider certain adjectives: små- ‘small’: smårar small-funny ‘a bit peculiar’; stor- ‘big’: storfornøyd big-contented ‘delighted’; certain quantifiers: halv- ‘half’: halvferdig ‘half-finished’; hel- ‘whole’: helsvart whole-black ‘dismal’, and all- ‘all’; and some nouns: kjempestor giant-big ‘gigantic’, dritkul shit-cool ‘extremely cool’.

4.3. Verbal derivation Prefixation is far more common than suffixation.

4.3.1. Suffixation The only common and productive suffix is -er-, with the variants -iser- and -ifiser-. It is primarily found in verbs of foreign, French or Latinate, origin but it also occurs with native verb roots, as in halvere ‘to divide in two, halve’. Cf. Table 141.13. Tab. 141.13: Derivational suffixes in Norwegian verbs Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived verb

-er-

N Adj

plass halv

‘place’ ‘half’

plassere halvere

‘to place’ ‘to divide in two, halve’

-iser-

N Adj

ideal sosial

‘ideal’ ‘social’

idealisere sosialisere

‘to idealize’ ‘to socialize’

-ifiser-

Adj

elektrisk

‘electric’

elektrifisere

‘to electrify’

In some cases morphophonemic differences exist between -er- verbs and their roots, due to etymological stem-variation differences: problem → problematisere ‘to problematize’, refleks ‘reflex’ → reflektere ‘to reflect’, kritikk ‘critique’ → kritisere ‘to criticize’. Occasionally, doublets exist, either with another suffix variant: harmonere and harmonisere ‘to harmonize’; or with another kind of derivation: lakkere and lakke ‘to varnish’, the latter representing conversion. Two special groups of verbs with -n- or -r- after the stem proper should be mentioned, even though neither group appears to be productive. The -n- verbs have transformative or inchoative meaning: frisk ‘healthy’ → friskne (til) ‘to recover’, sove ‘to sleep’ → sovne ‘to fall asleep’, hard ‘hard’ → hardne ‘to harden’. The -r- verbs have iterative or intensifying meaning, denoting a rapid movement or a brief or repeated sound: flimre ‘to flicker’, knitre ‘to rustle, creak’, jamre ‘to wail, moan’. In contrast to the -n- verbs, most of the -r- verbs have no identifiable verbal base.

2546

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

4.3.2. Prefixation When verbs with a preposition or an adverb as first element are considered compounds, the number of true prefixes turns out to be rather limited. Cf. Table 141.14. Tab. 141.14: Derivational prefixes in Norwegian verbs Prefix

Base category

Base word

Prefixed verb

for-

V N Adj Num

dømme damp ny en

‘to judge’ ‘damp’ ‘new’ ‘one’

fordømme fordampe fornye forene

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

be-

V Adj

herske fri

‘to rule’ ‘free’

beherske befri

‘to master’ ‘to liberate’

an-

V

rope

‘to shout’

anrope

‘to hail’

bi-

V

stå

‘to stand’

bistå

‘to assist’

er-

V

kjenne

‘to know’

erkjenne

‘to recognize’

fore-

V

gå

‘to go’

foregå

‘to take place’

føre(NN)

V

byggje

‘to build’

førebyggje

‘to prevent’

mis-

V

like

‘to like’

mislike

‘to dislike’

unn-

V

slippe

‘to avoid’

unnslippe

‘to escape’

ur-

V

fremføre

‘to perform’

urfremføre

‘to perform for the first time’

van-

V

trives

‘feel comfortable’

vantrives

‘be uncomfortable’

geråde

‘to get into’

ge-

−

condemn’ evaporate’ renew’ unite’

The numerous verbs with the German prefix be- are either taken directly over from German, which may cause semantic discrepancies in relation to unprefixed Norwegian verbs, e.g., betale and Middle Low German betalen ‘to pay’ vs. Norwegian tale ‘to speak’; or they are calques where a corresponding Norwegian word form is substituted for the German base: bestå ‘to remain’, betvile ‘to doubt’. This also applies to verbs with er-, cf. erobre, MLG eröveren, G erobern ‘conquer’. The relationship between for-, fore- and føre- is fairly complicated. For- corresponds both to MLG vor- and the Norwegian preposition for, but often derives its meaning from the former, cf. causatives like forgylle ‘to gild’ and pejoratives like forakte ‘to despise’. BM fore- and NN føre- are specifically Norwegian: forebygge/førebyggje ‘to prevent’; NN føre- derives from the ON preposition fyrir and also occurs as the equivalent of Bokmål for-: NN førebu vs. BM forberede ‘to prepare’. An- and bi- have a less common use as a postverbal particle in phrasal verbs: se an ‘to wait and see’, stå bi ‘to assist’, but this hardly suffices to classify the far more numerous prefixal an- and bi- formations as compounds.

141. Norwegian

2547

A number of verbs with the German prefixes be-, for- have in the course of time been accepted into Nynorsk but an-, er- and unn- are still felt to be alien to Nynorsk. The adjectives halv- ‘half’, hel- ‘whole’, små- ‘small’, stor- ‘great’ function as modifying prefixoids: halvsove half-sleep ‘to be halfway asleep’, helgardere whole-guard ‘to bet on all alternatives’, småprate small-talk ‘to make small talk’, storle big-laugh ‘to roar with laughter’. In verbs, the negative prefix u- ‘un-’ is mostly found in past and present participles approaching adjectival status: ugjort un-done ‘not done, still to be done’, upassende unsuiting ‘inappropriate’; but cf. roe ‘to calm’ → uroe ‘to unsettle’.

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs are derived from adjectives by adding the (neuter singular) ending -t to an adjectival stem: vakkerAdj ‘beautiful’ + t → vakkertAdv ‘beautifully’. When an adjectival stem does not allow for the -t suffix, the bare stem is used instead. This applies to adjectives ending in -(l)ig, -sk, -s or a vowel, thus: ivrig ‘eager(ly)’, farlig ‘dangerous(ly)’, fantastisk ‘fantastic(ally)’, stille ‘quiet(ly)’ (but NN stilt), tilfreds ‘content(edly)’. The suffix -messig borrowed from German is also used to derive adverbs meaning ‘with regard to’: prosedyremessig ‘with regard to procedure, procedurally’. In imitation of another productive German pattern, the noun vis ‘way, manner’ turns adjectives ending in -lig into adverbs: heldig ‘lucky’ → heldigvis ‘fortunately’, naturlig ‘natural’ → naturligvis ‘naturally’; and -vis also turns up as an expansion of adverbs ending in -lig: forhåpentlig ‘hopefully’ → forhåpentligvis. Otherwise, -vis is used to derive quantifying and distributive adverbs from nouns: haugevis heap-LINK-vis ‘in heaps’, puljevis ‘by groups’. A group of local adverbs show an opposition between a directional form without a suffix and a non-directional form with an -e suffix: inn − inne ‘inside’, ut − ute ‘outside’, opp ‘up’− oppe ‘upstairs’, ned − nede ‘down(stairs)’, hjem ‘home’ − hjemme ‘at home’, frem/fram ‘ahead’ − fremme/framme ‘in front’. The ending -ende (Nynorsk even -ande) is found in a number of adverbial intensifiers: isende kaldt ‘icily cold’, NN dørgende/dørgande stilt ‘stock-still’.

5. Conversion Conversion, the transfer of a stem or root lexeme from one word class to another, with changes in inflectional morphology, may work in different directions. For instance, the nouns kast ‘throw’, kjøp ‘buy’, spark ‘kick’, søk ‘search’ are most naturally understood as secondary in relation to the corresponding verbs kaste ‘to throw’, kjøpe ‘to buy’, sparke ‘to kick’, søke ‘to seek’. On the other hand, the verbs bile ‘to go by car’, bombe ‘to bomb’, krige ‘to wage war’, ploge ‘to make a snowplough (in skiing)’, salte ‘to salt’, sjefe ‘to be in command’ and tryne ‘to fall on one’s face’ are derived from the nouns bil ‘car’, bomb ‘bomb’, plog ‘plow’, salt ‘salt’, sjef ‘boss’, and tryne ‘face’. Occasional-

2548

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

ly, the conversion base is a compound: svarteliste ‘(to) blacklist’; the verb is more common. With some verbs, the question of directionality is problematic; there is, for instance, no easy way to decide whether hat ‘hatred’ is derived from hate ‘to hate’ or vice versa; similarly in the case of lek ‘game’ and leke ‘to play’, tvil ‘doubt’ and tvile ‘to doubt’. Verbs are also derived from adjectives by conversion: blek ‘pale’ → bleke ‘to bleach’, bløt ‘wet’ → bløte ‘to soak’, flat ‘flat’ → flate (ut) ‘flatten (out)’, sann ‘true’ → sanne ‘to acknowledge’, bedre ‘better’, comparative of good → bedre ‘to improve’. Stem differences between the two members of an alleged conversion relationship may be due to ancient Indo-European ablaut; cf. the verb-noun correlations in binde ‘to bind’ → bånd/band ‘band, ribbon’, drepe ‘to kill’ → drap ‘killing’, slå ‘to hit’ → slag ‘blow’; or to later Germanic umlaut, as in the following adjective-verb correlations: glad ‘happy’ → glede ‘to make happy’, fast ‘firm’ → feste ‘to fasten’, tam ‘tame’→ temme ‘to tame’, vrang ‘inside out’ → vrenge ‘to turn inside out’ (cf. Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo 1997: 124). It is, however, not obvious that phonological processes that have not been operative for the past thousand or two thousand years should be brought to bear on the synchronic description of present-day lexical correlations.

6. Neoclassical word-formation Aspects of foreign and neoclassical word-formation have already been dealt with in section 4 on derivation, cf. in particular Tables 141.7, 141.10, 141.13 and 141.14. Table 141.15 provides a list of numerous common elements of Greek and Latinate origin. Listed under a) are elements functioning as regular prefixes, and under b) components of complex words where neither the first nor the second component is a free form. The latter kind of complex words can neither be classified as compounds nor as derivations according to standard definitions of these concepts, which in general require a free form as head or base. Tab. 141.15: Neoclassical word-formation elements in Norwegian a) Formations with bound, prefixal first elements and a free form as second element: (i)

adjectival base:

a-, audio-, bi-, dys-, hyper-, in- (il-, im-, irr), non-, post-, ultraExamples: apolitisk ‘non-political’, audiovisuell ‘audiovisual’, biseksuell ‘bisexual’, illegitim ‘illegitimate’, nonfigurativ ‘non-figurative’, hyperaktiv ‘hyperactive’

(ii)

nominal base:

ad-, akva-, an-, desi-, dis-, erke-, eks-, giga-, hypo-, ko-, kontra-, krypto-, kvasi-, mega-, makro-, mikro-, milli-, mini-, meta-, proff-, pseudo-/psevdo-, semi-, sosio-, sub-, termo-, vara-, vise-, økoExamples: akvakultur ‘aquaculture’, analfabet ‘analphabet’, koproduksjon ‘co-production’, millimeter, sosiolingvistikk ‘socio-linguistics’, visepresident ‘vice president’

(iii) verbal base:

de-, des-, pre-, reExamples: demontere ‘to dismantle’, desinformere ‘to disinform’, resosialisere ‘to resocialize’

141. Norwegian

2549

Tab. 141.15: (continued) (iv) adjectival and nominal bases:

anti-, homo-, inter-, mega-, pan-, pro-, super-, multiExamples: internasjonal ‘international’ − interaksjon ‘interaction’, supereffektiv ‘highly efficient’ − superlærer ‘superb teacher’, multietnisk ‘multiethnic’ − multimilliardær ‘multi milliardaire’

(v)

hyper-, transExamples: hyperkorrekt ‘hypercorrect’ − hyperventilere ‘to hyperventilate’, transseksuell ‘transsexual’ − transplantere ‘to transplant’

adjectival and verbal bases:

(vi) nominal and verbal bases:

disExamples: disharmoni ‘disharmony’, diskvalifisere ‘to disqualify’

b) Formations with bound first and second elements: (i)

(ii)

adjectival formations, first elements:

andro-, bi-, homo-, hetero-, intra-, mono-, retro-

second elements:

-fil, -fleks, -gam, -gyn, -kron, -venøs

Examples for first and second elements:

androgyn ‘androgynous’, bifil ‘bisexual’, intravenøs ‘intravenous’, retrofleks ‘retroflex’

nominal formations, first elements:

af-, akt-, antropo-, astro-, auto-, bio-, demo-, desi-, dia-, dys-, eks-, em-, eu-/ev-, filo-, geo-, glosso-, hypo-, ideo-, idio-, im-, in-, kalli-, karto-, ko-, mono-, ob-, para-, pluto-, pre-, proto-, pseudo-/psevdo-, re-, sosio-, sub-, suf-, sym-, syn-, tele-, teo-, termo-, topo-, øko-

second elements:

-bel, -esse, -fase, -fiks, -fon, -graf(i), -femisme, -fyse, -itus, -jekt, -krat(i), -lali, -leksi, -lekt, -lektikk, -log(i), -lyse, -meter, -metri, -or, -nym(i), -pat(i), -port, -skop(i), -sof(i), -tek, -tese, -typ

Examples for first and second elements:

antropolog ‘anthropologist’, filosofi ‘philosophy’, dialyse ‘dialysis’, autonomi ‘autonomy’, emfase ‘emphasis’, dysleksi ‘dyslexia’, teokrati ‘theocracy’, suffiks ‘suffix’, synkron ‘synchronic’, glossolali ‘glossolalia’, eksport ‘export’, koitus ‘coitus’, subject ‘subject’

(iii) adjectival and nominal formations, first elements:

aero-, biblio-, iso-, kon-, orto-, poly-

adjectival second elements:

-fil, -fon, -form, -morf, -doks, -gam

nominal second elements:

-drom, -gloss, -glott, -graf, -tek

Examples for first and second elements:

aeronautisk ‘aeronautical’ − aerodrom ‘aerodrome’, isomorf ‘isomorphic’ − isogloss ‘isogloss’, ortodoks ‘orthodox’ − ortografi ‘orthography’, polygam ‘polygamous’ − polyglot ‘polyglot’

2550

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 141.15: (continued) (iv) verbal formations, first elements:

ante-, in-, kon-

second elements:

-fluere, -sipere, -struere

Examples for first and second elements:

antesipere ‘to anticipate’, influere ‘to influence’, konstruere ‘to construct’

Some of the elements listed under a) occur in the b) type, too, cf. kryptokommunist ‘crypto-communist’ and kryptologi ‘cryptology’, narkolanger ‘drug dealer’ and narkoman ‘drug addict’. Many of the elements listed in Table 141.15 occur in further derivational correlations, cf. the numerous cases where the second element of an adjective or a noun referring to a person (-doks, -log) corresponds to a nominal element with a final -i (-doksi, -logi) referring to an abstract concept, an activity or a scientific discipline. Some of the first and second elements in question are rare (e.g., andro-) or limited to scientific terminology (-lali), whereas others form large groups of combinations that are part of common usage in modern societies, such as biolog(i), biograf(i), etc., and geolog(i), sosiolog(i), teolog(i), etc. In Table 141.15 b), both the first and second elements are affix-like in character. There do, however, also exist a number of foreign word-formation patterns where the first element, although a bound form, or a morpho-phonological variant of a bound form, is clearly lexical: pensum ‘curriculum’; alternere ‘to alternate’, alternativ (noun or adjective) ‘alternative’; indikere ‘to indicate’, indisium ‘indication’; kommunikere ‘to communicate’, kommunikasjon ‘communication’, kommunikator ‘communicator’; kritisere ‘to criticize’, kritisk ‘critical’, kriterium ‘criterion’, etc.

7. Backformation, clipping and other special word-formation processes 7.1. Backformation A common backformation pattern has as its first stage a verbal phrase with a postverbal complement that is nominalized as a compound, which is then reverbalized as a composite verb, e.g., felle dom over ‘to pass sentence on’ → domfellelse ‘sentence, conviction’ → domfelle ‘to pass sentence on’, kjøre i fylla ‘to drive in a drunken condition’ → fyllekjøring ‘drunk driving’ → fyllekjøre ‘to drive in a drunken condition’; similarly julehandle Christmas-shop ‘to shop for Christmas’, nødlande distress-land ‘to make an emergency landing’. More rarely, verbs are derived from composite adjectives in a similar fashion: strømlinjet ‘streamlined’ → strømlinje ‘to streamline’. Some nouns appear to be derived from adjectives by backformation: spenstig ‘resilient’ → spenst ‘resilience’, mangfoldig ‘multifarious’ → mangfold ‘diversity’. Inversely, adjectives are derived from nouns: ungdomskriminalitet ‘juvenile delinquency’ → ungdomskriminell ‘juvenile delinquent’, studieeffektivitet ‘learning efficiency’ → studieeffektiv ‘learning efficient’.

141. Norwegian

2551

7.2. Clipping Most clippings correspond to the first, syllabic or morphemic part of a word. They are made from native compounds: straffespark ‘penalty (kick)’ → straffe, and in particular from composite words of foreign origin: manuskript ‘manuscript’ → manus, permisjon ‘leave’ → perm, laboratorium ‘laboratory’ → lab, kriminalroman ‘crime novel’ → krim, kondisjon ‘physical fitness’ → kondis, matematikk ‘mathematics’ → matte, repetisjonsøvelse ‘military review exercise’ → rep and, with omission of a syllable, kvalifikasjon ‘qualifying contest’ → kvalik. More rarely, clippings derive from a phrasal base: personlig rekord ‘personal record’ → pers. The adjectival use of the neoclassical suffix super, as in en super lærer ‘a terrific teacher’, is a result of clipping, cf. adjectives like supereffektiv ‘extremely effective’. The nominal use of some other prefixes is explained similarly: en eks ‘a former spouse, girlfriend, etc.’, en vara ‘a deputy’, which are derived from words like eksmann ‘exhusband’, varamann ‘deputy’. Shorter forms of verbs arise in this way, too: dimittere ‘to demobilize’ → dimme ‘to demob’, diskvalifisere ‘to disqualify’ → diske. Common clippings based on the last part of a word are automobil → bil ‘car’, autobus → buss ‘bus’, and, derived from the first word of an English noun phrase, electric tram → trikk.

7.3. Acronyms Acronyms (or initialisms) are sequences of first letters, or first syllables, of a word, or of the words of a syntactic phrase, as a more economical expression for the meaning of the word or the phrase. Such abbreviated expressions are becoming increasingly common due to modern organizational and technological developments, and many are borrowed from English. Common acronyms tend to be written in lower-case letters: televisjon (now commonly called fjernsyn lit. ‘far-sight’) → tv, elektronisk databehandling ‘electronic data processing’ → edb; some are alternatively written in capital or lower-case letters: PC or pc ‘personal computer’. Others, in particular names of institutions and organizations, are written in capital letters only: Landsorganisasjonen (i Norge) ‘Trade Union Congress (of Norway)’ → LO, Olympiske leker ‘Olympic Games’ → OL, Norsk Rikskringkasting ‘Norwegian National Broadcasting’ → NRK, Forente Nasjoner ‘United Nations’ → FN, (Den) Europeiske Union ‘The European Union’ → EU. No full stops are used between the letters in acronyms. Common acronyms are often pronounced anacronymically as single words when this does not conflict with Norwegian phonotactic rules: hiv [hiːv], aids [æɪds], sars [saːrs], NATO [naːtu]; likewise Norsk Automobilforbund ‘Norwegian Automobile Association’ → NAF [nafː], Bondeungdomslaget lit. ‘Farmer Youth Association’ → BUL [bʉlː]. Otherwise, syllabic pronunciation of individual letters is used: brystholder ‘bra’ → bh (or BH or behå) [beːhoː], bruttonasjonalprodukt ‘gross national product’ → BNP [beːɛnːpeː], and LO [ɛlːuː], OL [uːɛlː], EU [eːʉː], NRK [ɛnːɛrːkoː].

2552

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

7.4. Reduplication Reduplication is marginal; but finfin ‘extremely fine, nice’ is one lexicalized example. Other examples are the silencing interjection hysj-hysj ‘hush!’ and the fixed locution det er ikke bare bare it is not only-only ‘it’s not all that easy’. In addition there are a few (mainly borrowed) expressions with ablaut-like vowel alternation: sikksakk ‘zigzag’, virvar ‘mess, confusion’, pikkpakk ‘bag and baggage’, dilldall ‘mumbo-jumbo’, and, with an additional suffix, fiksfakseri ‘fuss’. Some examples show consonant alternation: dingeling used to indicate the sound of a bell, ruskomsnusk ‘jumble, mishmash’. A few expressions for animal sounds may be noted; Norwegian geese say gakk-gakk, dogs say vov vov or voff voff, and pigs nøff nøff, mostly written in two words, but hyphenation occurs, too: nøff-nøff.

7.5. Blending Some well-known international blendings, like moped and dokudrama ‘docudrama’, have been adopted; lexicalized native blendings appear to be few and far between. The following are used fairly frequently: svensk-norsk ‘Swedish-Norwegian’ → svorsk ‘mixed Swedish and Norwegian language’, el(ektrisk) bil ‘electric car’ → elbil, alko(hol)test ‘blood-alcohol test’ → alkotest. The latter two are probably more accurately described as phrase-internal clippings with subsequent compounding.

8. References Aasen, Ivar 1965 [1864] Norsk Grammatik. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget [First published Kristiania: Malling 1864]. Aasen, Ivar 1996 [1848] Det norsk Folkesprogs Grammatik. Volda: Høgskulen i Volda [First published Kristiania: Werner & Comp. 1848]. Akø, Jørn-Otto 1989 Sammensatte ord. Bruken av s-fuge i moderne bokmål. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Nordic Studies, University of Oslo. Alhaug, Gulbrand 1973 En datamaskinell undersøkelse av suffiksvekslingen -ing/-ning i moderne norsk. Mimeographed, Department of Nordic Studies, University of Bergen. Askedal, John Ole 1996 Betegnelser for norsk språk. Maal og Minne 2/1996: 207−213. Askedal, John Ole 1997 Norske tallord og den “gamle” og den “nye” tellemåten. Maal og Minne 2/1997: 191− 206. Beito, Olav T. 1970 Nynorsk grammatikk. Lyd- og ordlære. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Berkov, Valerij 1997 Norsk ordlære. Oslo: Universitetsforlaaget.

141. Norwegian

2553

Dal, Ingerid 1929 Ursprung und Verwendung der altnordischen “Expletivpartikel” of, um. Oslo: Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi. Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie and Kjell Ivar Vannebo 1997 Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Guttu, Tor and Boye Wangensteen (eds.) 2012 Nyord i norsk. Oslo: Kunnskapsforlaget. Haugen, Einar 1966 Language Conflict and Language Planning. The Case of Modern Norwegian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heggelund, Kjell T. 1985 Bruken av ord på an-, be-, -else og -he(i)t i nynorsk: Ein empirisk studie. Maal og Minne 3−4/1985: 227−248. Heggstad, Leiv 1931 Norsk grammatikk. Oslo: Norli. Hellevik, Alf 1984 Om -nad-avleiingar i norsk. In: Bernt Fossestøl, Kjell Ivar Vannebo, Kjell Venås and Finn-Erik Vinje (eds.), Festskrift til Einar Lundeby 3. oktober 1984, 115−129. Oslo: Novus. Jakobsen, Alfred 1970 Avledninger på -leik i nordisk, særlig norsk. Maal og Minne 3−4/1970: 104−124. Johannessen, Ole Jørgen 2001 Ordlaging. In: Jarle Rønhovd (ed.), Norsk morfologi, 136−167. 2nd ed. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. Knudsen, Knud 2002 [1856] Haandbog i dansk-norsk Sproglære. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget [First published Kristiania: Abelsted 1856]. Leira, Vigleik 1982 Nyord i norsk. 1945−1975. Oslo: Norsk språkråd. Leira, Vigleik 1992 Ordlaging og ordelement i norsk. Oslo: Samlaget. Leira, Vigleik 1994 Bøyingsformer som ledd i samansetjingar. Maal og Minne 1−2/1994: 65−74. Løkke, Jakob 2009 [1855] Modersmålets Formlære i udførlig Fremstilling. Oslo: Novus forlag [First published Kristiania: Dahl 1855]. Nes, Oddvar 1983 Om nokre affiks i nynorsk − mest om -heit. 2nd ed. Mimeographed, Department of Nordic Studies, University of Bergen. Næs, Olav 1972 Norsk grammatikk. Elementære strukturer og syntaks. Oslo: Fabritius. Skjekkeland, Martin 1999 Tysk-danske lånord i nynorsk og i bygdemåla. Om ein frisk debatt − og om ei gransking av ordtilfanget i to bygdemål. Kristiansand: Høgskolen i Agder. Venås, Kjell 1990 Norsk grammatikk. Nynorsk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Vikør, Lars S. 1990 I staden fot -heit: Ein studie i syntaktisk purisme. Maal og Minne 1−2/1990: 23−54. Vikør, Lars 2001 The Nordic Languages. Their Status and Interrelations. 2nd ed. Oslo: Novus. Vinje, Finn-Erik 1973 Ord om ord. Innledning til en norsk ordlagingslære. Trondheim: Tapir.

2554

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Wangensteen, Boye (ed.) 2015 Tanums store rettskrivningsordbok. Bokmål. 10th ed. Oslo: Kunnskapsforlaget.

John Ole Askedal, Oslo (Norway)

142. Swedish 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Borrowed word-formation and neoclassical word-formation Blending and clipping References

Abstract The main word-formation processes in Swedish are compounding and derivation. Nominal and adjectival compounding are productive processes, unlike verbal or adverbial compounding. Most compound lexemes are right-headed. Linking elements occur. Derivation is achieved by prefixation and suffixation. Nominal leftmost as well as adjectival rightmost constituents are sometimes reanalysed as affixes. Many affixes are borrowed from (Low) German or from classic languages (via French). Conversion, blending, and clipping are other methods used for enlarging the lexicon.

1. Introduction Swedish is an East North Germanic language typologically grouped together with Danish and Norwegian as Mainland Scandinavian vs. the Insular Scandinavian languages Faroese and Icelandic. During the late Middle Ages, the Mainland Scandinavian languages were under the strong influence of (Middle) Low German. The intense language contacts affected both the lexicon and the grammar of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish and even resulted in the adoption of Low German word-formation patterns. Other sources of influence on Swedish word-formation are the classic languages Greek and Latin, as well as French. Today, Swedish is the official language in Sweden, where it is spoken by 90 % of its ca. 9,500,000 inhabitants (census of 2012), as well as the second official language in Finland where it is mother tongue of ca. 300,000 Finland Swedes living mostly in the

142. Swedish

2555

southern and western parts of the country. The autonomous Finish province of Åland islands is a monolingual Swedish region (Braunmüller 2007). Word-formation in Swedish has been the subject of numerous surveys in the research history of Swedish grammar. Generally, one can identify three periods focusing on different aspects of word-formation: mainly diachronically oriented (1880s−mid-twentieth century), mainly synchronically oriented (1960s−1980s) and corpus-based surveys of word-formation (mid-1980s and onward). Representative for the diachronically oriented period in the study of word-formation in Swedish are Hellquist (1922) and Wessén (1943). Noreen (1906) offers a comprehensive survey of the history of word-formation principles in Swedish and provides lists of derivational affixes. Several synchronic overviews of principles of Swedish word-formation exist, such as Söderbergh (1968), Teleman (1970), Liljestrand (1974), Thorell (1981, 1984). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik (Teleman, Hellberg and Andersson 1999, henceforth SAG 2) includes word-formation in its description of word classes in Swedish. Hinchliffe and Holmes (1994) (in English) deal with composition (though not with derivation) in Swedish. Recent publications addressing general issues in Swedish word-formation are Liljestrand (1993) (a revised edition of Liljestrand 1974) and Josefsson (2005). Josefsson places word-formation in Swedish in a broader context and includes aspects of wordformation patterns in language acquisition as well. In recent decades, large corpora such as Språkbanken at Gothenburg University (http://spraakbanken.gu.se/), or the English-Swedish Parallel Corpus at Lund University (http://www.sol.lu.se/engelska/corpus/corpus/espc.html) are used for describing tendencies in the word-formation of Swedish, cf. Allén, Gellerstam and Malmgren (1989), Malmgren (1994) and Josefsson (2002). The comprehensive reference grammar of Swedish, Svenska Akademiens Grammatik (SAG2) is also based on data from Språkbanken. Different aspects of word-formation in Swedish have been addressed within the ORDAT project (Det svenska ordförrådets utveckling från artonhundra till tjugohundra [The development of the Swedish lexicon from year 1800 to year 2000]), cf. the anthology of Malmgren and Olofsson (2003) and further publications such as Malmgren (2002a, 2002b) or Lundbladh (2002). Josefsson (1998) offers a minimalist account of word-formation in Swedish. The study originated within the joint Scandinavian lexicon project NORDLEX (Herslund and Sørensen 1993), and deals with the basic principles of word-formation with Germanic morphemes, and with derivations of the Germanic type. Josefsson (1998) focuses on open word classes, primarily verbs and nouns.

2. General overview The major word-formation processes in Swedish are composition and derivation. Blending and clipping also form new lexemes. Two types of compounds exist in Swedish: determinative and copulative. The predominant compound type is determinative and right-headed. The first constituent in a compound can comprise a root, cf. hus-vagn house car ‘caravan’, a derived word as in arbet-ar(e)-parti ‘worker’s party’, or a compound as in husvagn-s-hjul ‘caravan tyre’. A

2556

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

univerbated phrase as the left constituent in a compound is less common, like the quantifier phrase två man ‘two man’ in tvåman-s-bob ‘two-person bob sleigh’. Determinative compounds can comprise a linking element, historically a genitive case marking, cf. the linking element -s- in husvagn-s-hjul or tvåman-s-bob above. Coordinative compounds are formed by joining two (seldom more) heads, cf. svart-vitt ‘black and white’. The order of the heads is conventionalised. Derived lexemes are formed by suffixation and prefixation. Derivational suffixes alter the meaning of the base and can also change the word class of the derivate, as for example the suffix -else, which renders abstract nouns from a verbal base, cf. röra ‘to move’ → rör-else ‘movement’, or -are which yields agent nouns as in arbeta ‘to work’ → arbet-are ‘worker’. Prefixes do not change the word class of the base but alter its meaning, like gen- in gåva ‘gift’ → gen-gåva ‘gift in return’, which adds a reciprocal meaning, or the negating prefix mis-, like in gynna ‘to support’ → miss-gynna ‘to disadvantage’. Lexemes can be formed by adding an affixoid (a prefixoid or a suffixiod) to a base. Affixoids are semantically bleached free lexemes, which resemble word-formation affixes in being used to generate series of lexemes, cf. the prefixoid jätte-, originally ‘giant’ in jätte-liten giant-small ‘very small’, jätte-dyr giant-expensive ‘very expensive’ or the suffixiod -vänlig ‘friendly’ in miljö-vänlig ‘eco-friendly’ or bil-vänlig ‘car-friendly’. The word-formation processes blending and clipping form shorter lexemes. An example for blending is blomma ‘flower’ + telegram → blommogram ‘flower arrangement sent as a gift’, automobil → bil ‘car’ for the latter. Delimiting the boundary between word-formation, i.e. morphology, and syntax can pose a challenge in dealing with nominal compounds vs. (possessive) noun phrases as well as phrasal vs. prefix verbs. Possession in Swedish is marked by adding the formant -s, a fossilized genitive case ending, to the rightmost element of the modifier in a possessive noun phrase: Anna och Stinas mamma ‘Anna and Stina’s mom’. In nominal compounds, the cognate morpheme -s- can occur as a linking element. However, possessive noun phrases and compounds differ with regard to stress pattern. The head of a possessive noun phrase bears primary stress (word accent) while the head of the compound receives secondary stress (and lacks word accent) (cf. Bruce 1977: 12–13). Possessive noun phrases and nominal compounds with the linking element -s- are also differentiated in writing: they are written separately like in en skogs historia ‘history of a forest’ (possessive noun phrase marker) vs. en skogshistoria ‘forest story’ (linking element in a compound) written as one word (cf. Delsing 2002 on the linking element -s-). Linking elements in Swedish have also been the subject of comparative surveys dealing with Danish, Dutch and German (Kürschner 2007, Kürschner 2010, cf. also article 32 on linking elements in Germanic). Particle verbs (phrasal verbs) i.e. verb phrases of the type gå upp ‘to go up, rise’, ta(ga) med ‘to take along’ on the one hand and prefixed verbs like uppgå ‘to go up, rise’, medta(ga) ‘to take along’ on the other are semantically close (or even equivalent) and thus often considered forms of the same verb (Thorell 1981: 53, see also article 35 on particle verbs in Germanic). On word-formation in other North Germanic languages, cf. articles in this volume on Faroese (139), Danish (140), Norwegian (141) and Icelandic (143).

142. Swedish

2557

3. Composition Composition is the process of combining two constituents into a new lexical item. Most common in Swedish are determinative right-headed compounds, i.e. the left constituent modifies the right constituent (head), cf. personbil person-car ‘car’, lastbil load-car ‘lorry’ as different types of bil ‘car’. All major word classes, i.e. nouns, verbs and adjectives occur as right constituents in determinative compounds. Coordinative compounds on the other hand contain two or more heads, while lacking modifying constituents, cf. the adjectival compounds sötsur sweet-sour ‘sweet-and-sour’ or blå-vit-röd (flagga) ‘bluewhite-red (flag)’.

3.1. Nominal compounds The right constituent in a nominal compound is a noun. The first constituent can belong to any of the following word classes: nouns (N), adjectives (Adj), verbs (V), pronouns (Pro), quantifiers (Q), or adverbs (Adv). It can be a root hus-vagn house car ‘caravan’, a derived or a compound noun, or even a univerbated phrase (cf. Booij 2007: 19 on univerbation). The compounding process is recursive, thus the newly-formed lexeme can be subjected to subsequent composition, cf. (1). Compounds can serve as input to derivation processes as well (2). (1)

N skepp ‘ship’

→ →

[[N]s[N]]N skepp-s-kapten ‘ship captain’

(2)

N tåg

→ →

[[N][V]]V tåg-luffa train-hitchhike ‘to travel with an InterRail pass’

‘train’

→ →

[[[N]s[N]]s[N]] skepp-s-kapten-s-mössa ‘ship captain’s cap’

→ →

[[N][V]]V-areN tåg-luff-are train-hitchhik-er ‘person travelling with an InterRail pass’

Table 142.1 offers an overview of the leftmost constituents used in nominal composition in Swedish. The grammatical gender and class of nominal compounds are usually determined by the rightmost constituent, cf. (3). However, the compound may also manifest gender and/or nominal class different from the original gender and/or nominal class of its head, cf. (4). The compound smör-gås butter goose ‘sandwich’ (cf. Hellquist 1980) yields a regular plural which differs from the plural of the original right constituent gås ‘goose’ presumably due to its being opaque to present-day speakers of Swedish. (3)

skrivning (common gender) → biologi-skrivning (common gender) ‘test paper’ → ‘biology test paper’

2558

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

(4)

a. blick (common gender) → ögon-blick (neuter gender) ‘glance’ → eyes-glance ‘moment’ b. gås.SG → gäss.PL but smör-gås.SG → smör-gås-ar.PL ‘goose’ ‘geese’ ‘sandwich’ ‘sandwiches’

Coordinative nominal compounds in Swedish are less frequent than determinative ones. Determinative compounds like [[prins]N[gemål]N]N ‘prince consort’ receive single definiteness marking on the rightmost constituent: prinsgemål-en ‘the prince consort’, while coordinative compounds such as [[prins]N[regent]N]N ‘prince regent’ allow for definiteness marking on both heads: prins-en-regent-en ‘the prince regent ’ (SAG 2: 44). Personal names like Karl-Gustav or Anna-Lisa can be characterized as coordinative compounds where the order of the constituents is constrained only by convention (SAG 2: 129−130; Thorell 1981: 29), others such as Stor-Sven ‘Big Sven’, Lill-Babs ‘Little Babs’, Västgöta-Pelle ‘Pelle the Westrogoth (i.e. from West Gothland, a region in Sweden)’, Svält-Feldt ‘Starving Feldt’ have to be analysed as determinative compounds with an adjectival or nominal first constituent (SAG 2: 130). Swedish family names are often compounds. Besides the most common right constituent -son ‘son (of)’, family names frequently comprise a second constituent referring to a concept from the semantic field related to nature: -berg ‘hill/mountain top’, -blad ‘leaf’, -blom ‘blossom’, -dal ‘valley’, -fors ‘waterfall/rapid’, -gren ‘branch’, -gård ‘(farm)yard’, -holm ‘small island’, -hult ‘grove’, -kvist/-qvist/-quist ‘twig’, -löv ‘foliage’, -man ‘man’, -rot ‘root’, -skog ‘forest’, -strand ‘shore’, -ström ‘stream’, -vall ‘mound’. Typical left constituents in such names are Al- ‘all’, Berg- ‘top’, Björk- ‘birch’, Blom‘flower’, Bäck- ‘stream’, Dal- ‘valley’, Ek- ‘oak’, Fors- ‘water fall/rapid’, Hag- ‘meadow’, Hall- ‘cliff’, Holm- ‘small island’, Karl- ‘man’, Kron- ‘crown’, Käll- ‘spring’, Lind‘lime tree’, Lund- ‘grove’, Malm- ‘ore’, Strand- ‘shore’, Val-/Vall- ‘mound’, cf. HolmTab. 142.1: Nominal compounds in Swedish NN

[[hus]N[vagn]N]N

house car ‘caravan’

PropNN

[[Zorn]N[tavla]N]N

Zorn painting ‘painting by Zorn’

AdjN

[[mjuk]Adj[vara]N]N

soft ware ‘software’

VN

[[kör]V[egenskap]N]N

drive characteristic ‘quality of driving’

ProN

[[vi]Pro[känsla]N]N

we feeling ‘we-feeling’

QN

[tre]Q[steg]N]N

three step ‘triple jump’

PN

[[på]P[annons]N]N

on announcement ‘announcement’

AdvN

[[då]Adv[tid]N]N

then time ‘past tense’

[Adj+N]NPN

[[[Svarta]Adj[hav]N]NPs[flotta]N]N

‘Black Sea fleet’

[Q+N]NPN

[[[en]Q[gång]N]NPs[flaska]N]N

one time bottle ‘disposable bottle’

[P+N]PPN

[[[under]P[vatten]N]PPs[kamera]N]N

‘under water camera’

[N+P]PPN

[[[året]N[runt]P]PP[bostad]N]N

year round flat ‘flat where one lives all year long’

142. Swedish

2559

berg, Björk-lund, Fors-lund, etc. (SAG 2: 130). Compound family names originated among the Swedish noble houses and were related to the symbols on the family’s coat of arms, e.g., Gylden-stierna ‘Golden Star’ or Leijonhufvud ‘Lion Head’ referring to the golden star or the lion heads on the heraldic shield, respectively. In the 18th century, middle class families started adopting family names coined in the style of the names used by the nobility, employing terms referring to entities of the local nature. In nominal compounds, a linking element can occur after the left constituent: [[skog]N-s-[historia]N]N ‘forest story’. Linking elements are usually inserted after every other constituent in recursive composition: [[mor]N[mor]N]N ‘grandmother (on the mother’s side)’ → [[[mor]N[mor]N]N-s-[mor]N]N ‘great-grandmother (on the mother’s side)’ → [[[mor]N[mor]N]N-s-[[mor]N[mor]N]N]N ‘great-great-grandmother (on the mother’s side)’ → [[[[mor]N[mor]N]N-s-[[mor]N[mor]N]N-s-[mor]N]N]N ‘great-great-great-grandmother (on the mother’s side)’, etc. The most frequent linking element in Swedish is -s-, less frequent elements are -o-/-u-, -e- and -er-, cf. (5). For an early account on linking elements, cf. Tamm (1900). Delsing (2002) is a survey on the linking element -s-. (5)

a. b. c. d. e.

man-s-röst gat-u-kök veck-o-penning högskol-e-byggnad rätt-ar-ting

street-u-kitchen week-o-coin high school-e-building court-ar-thing

‘man’s voice’ ‘food cart’ ‘pocket-money’ ‘high school building’ ‘law assembly’

Linking elements can affect compound segmentation, cf. [[barn]N[[bok]N[klubb]N]N]N ‘book club for children’ vs. [[[barn]N[bok]N]N-s-[klubb]N]N ‘club for children’s books’ (Josefsson 1997: 60). Historically, linking elements in Swedish are genitive case markings. With the exception of the linking morpheme -s- these formants are opaque to speakers of Modern Swedish.

3.2. Adjectival compounds Adjective compounds have an adjectival right constituent. The most common pattern of adjectival composition in Swedish has a noun as its left constituent, other possible left constituents are adjectives, verbs, pronouns, adverbs, and prepositions (cf. Table 142.2). Tab. 142.2: Adjectival compounds in Swedish NAdj

[[mord]N[lysten]Adj]Adj

murder greedy

‘murderous’

AdjAdj

[[mjörk]Adj[blå]Adj]Adj

dark blue

‘dark blue’

VAdj

[[kör]V[klar]Adj]Adj

drive ready

‘ready to run’

ProAdj

[[jag]Pro[svag]Adj]Adj

I weak

‘having an inferiority complex’

QAdj

[[mång]Q[etnisk]Adj

many ethnic

‘multiethnic’

PAdj

[[mellan]P[stor]Adj]Adj

between big

‘medium sized’

AdvAdj

[[ut]Adv[fattig]Adj]Adj

out poor

‘impoverished’

2560

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Coordinative adjectival compounds like svartvitt ‘black and white’ or (hyphenated) norsk-engelsk ‘Norwegian-English’ are less frequent than determinative ones (SAG 2: 188). Coordinative adjective-adjective compounds tend to be hyphenated in writing as long as they are not yet lexicalised, while lexicalised compounds are univerbated (cf. univerbation in Booij 2007: 19). (6) (7)

lexicalised blågul (flagga)

blue yellow

not (yet) lexicalised tysk-svensk (ordbok)

‘blue-and-yellow, i.e. Swedish (flag)’ ‘German-Swedish (dictionary)’

Hyphenated compound adjectives used as attributes show agreement marking on both constituents if the head of the noun phrase is of neuter gender and in singular, cf. (8). If the head is marked for plural, and/or for definiteness, agreement is marked only on the last element of the adjectival compound (SAG 2: 188), cf. (9). (8)

agreement with head noun of neuter gender in singular ett engelskt-svenskt lexikon ‘an English-Swedish lexicon’

(9)

a. no agreement with head noun (neuter or common gender) in plural engelsk-svenska (lexikon/ordböck-er) ‘English-Swedish lexicons/dictionaries’ b. no agreement with definite head noun (neuter or common gender) det engelsk-svenska leksikon-et − den engelsk-svenska ordbok-en ‘the English-Swedish lexicon’ − ‘the English-Swedish dictionary’

3.3. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds comprise a verb as the rightmost constituent. The left constituent can belong to different word classes: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, or can be a univerbated phrase (cf. Table 142.3). Tab. 142.3: Verbal composition in Swedish NV

[[tjuv]N[lyssna]V]V

thief-listen ‘to eavesdrop’

AdjV

[[kal]Adj[hugga]V]V [[ren]Adj[göra]V]V

bold-chop ‘to deforest’ clean-do ‘to clean’

VV

[[bränn]V[märka]V]V [[kryp]V[köra]V]V

brand-mark ‘to brand’ crawl-drive ‘to crawl along’

AdvV

[[ut]Adv[sätta]V]V

out-set ‘to expose’

PV

[[till]P[foga]V]V

towards-join ‘to add’

[P+Pro]PPV

[[[för]P[sig]Pro]PP[gå]V]V

for-oneself-go ‘to proceed’

[P+N]PPV

[[[i]P[gång]N]PP[sätta]V]V

to in-motion-set ‘to start’

142. Swedish

2561

Some verbal compounds with a preposition or an adverb as their first constituent and particle verbs are semantically, though not stylistically identical, while others differ both semantically and stylistically. Examples for the former are insätta/sätta in ‘to insert’, tillbakavisa/visa tillbaka ‘to reject’, and for the latter påpeka ‘to note’/peka på ‘to point at’ or avbryta ‘to interrupt’/bryta av ‘to break’. The verbal compounds often have a higher stylistic value than the particle verbs. However, exceptions exist: fastslå/slå fast ‘to establish’ share the same stylistic value (SAG 2: 528). Forming compound verbs with a nominal first constituent (NV) is not productive in modern Swedish except for compounds which comprise jul- ‘Christmas-’, vinter‘winter-’, chock- ‘shock-’, tjuv- ‘thief-’, hem- ‘home’ as their left constituent: jul-pryda Christmas-decorate ‘to decorate for Christmas’, vinter-förvara winter-store ‘to store during the winter’, chock-behandla shock-treat ‘to treat with a shock’, tjuv-lyssna thieflisten ‘to eavesdrop’, hem-köra home-drive ‘to drive home’ (Mellenius 1996: 146−147). Similar verb-noun compounds are attested in other North Germanic languages as well, cf. the articles on Faroese (139) and Icelandic (143) in this volume.

3.4. Adverbial and prepositional compounds Neither adverbial nor prepositional composition is a productive word-formation process in Swedish. However, a small group of compound adverbs/prepositions exists, consisting of directional adverbs as a left constituent and a directional adverb or preposition as a right constituent. The directional adverbs hit ‘hither’ and dit ‘thither’, or the interrogative directional adverb vart ‘whereto’ can occur as the left constituent, and the directional adverbs åt and tills, both ‘(in direction) to’ as the right constituent. Other possible constituents in adverbial compounds are adverbs denoting goal as the first constituent and a directional adverb denoting general movement meaning ‘(in direction) to/from’ as the second constituent like in [[upp]Adv[åt]Adv]Adv ‘upwards’ and [[ned]Adv[till]Adv]Adv, [[ned]Adv[åt]Adv]Adv, both down-to ‘downwards’. Since most of the elements occurring as a second constituent in such compounds have homonymous adverbial or prepositional forms, even the compounds can be homonymous, cf. adverbial use of uppåt ‘upwards’ in (10) vs. prepositional use in (11): (10) adverb uppåt Kurserna på börsen klättrar uppåt. market values.the on stock market.the climb upwards ‘The market values on the stock market climb upwards.’ (11) preposition uppåt Ödlan klättar uppåt väggen. lizard.the climbs up wall.the ‘The lizard climbs up the wall.’ Some prepositional compounds are synonymous with the non-compound form, but differ in style: i ‘in’ is neutral while [[ut]Adv[i]P]P out in ‘in’ is marked as archaic.

2562

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

3.5. Affixoids A lexical item used as a first or a second constituent in a series of compounds tends to be reanalysed as a prefix or a suffix, respectively (cf. Table 142.4). The adjective vänlig ‘friendly’ occurs as a second constituent in miljö-vänlig ‘eco-friendly’, barn-vänlig ‘child-friendly’, läs-vänlig read-friendly ‘readable’. At the same time, it is still used as an independent lexical item Hon är en vänlig person ‘She is a friendly person’. The noun jätte ‘giant’ has acquired an additional recurring and productive meaning as an intensifier in derived nouns and adjectives: jätte-stad giant-city ‘very big city’, jätteglad giant-happy ‘very happy’. Words like jätte- and vänlig- are referred to as affixoids, or as prefixoids and suffixoids, respectively (cf. Ascoop 2005; Lundbladh 2002; Malmgren 2002a; Andersson 2003 on affixoids in Swedish). In colloquial Swedish, the swear words (d)jävel, fan, both ‘devil’ and helvete ‘hell’ can function as suffixoids, adding a pejorative meaning to the nominal base they are attached to: dörrjävel door devil ‘door (pej.)’, jobbfan job devil ‘job (pej.)’, flickhelvete girl hell ‘girl (pej.)’. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik (SAG 2: 47) categorises pejorative words rendered by -jävel, -fan and -helvete as noun-noun compounds. However, compounds in Swedish are right-headed, thus husdörr house door ‘front door’ is a type of

Tab. 142.4: Affixoids in Swedish Affixoid

Base category

Base word

Derived word

jätte-

Adj N

liten project

‘small’ ‘project’

jätteliten jätteproject

giant-small ‘very small’ giant-project ‘very big project’

skit-

Adj N

bra stämning

‘good’ ‘mood’

skitbra skitstämning

shit-good ‘very good’ ‘very bad mood’

-(d)jävel

N

bil

‘car’

biljävel

‘car (pej.)’

-fan

N

bil

‘car’

bilfan

‘car (pej.)’

-fri

N

drog mangel

‘drug’ ‘defect’

drogfri mangelfri

recept

‘prescription’

receptfri

‘drug-free’ defect-free ‘free of defects’ prescription-free ‘over-the-counter (medicine)’

-helvete

N

bil

‘car’

bilhelvete

‘car (pej.)’

-lös

N

steg bostad

steglös bostadslös

‘step-less’ ‘homeless’

kontakt

‘step’ ‘dwelling place’ ‘contact’

kontaktlös

‘contactless’

familj hud hund

‘family’ ‘skin’ ‘dog’

familjvänlig hudvänlig hundvänlig

‘family-friendly’ ‘skin-friendly’ ‘dog friendly’

-vänlig

N

142. Swedish

2563

door and dörr-handtak ‘door handle’ is a type of handle. Dörr-jävel, on the other hand, is not a subclass of jävel ‘devil’ but of dörr ‘door’, and thus should be analysed as a derived noun and not as compound.

4. Derivation Derivation is the second relevant process in Swedish word-formation. In derivation, an affix is added to a base belonging to one of the major word classes (nouns, adjectives, verbs), to an adverb or to a univerbated phrase, yielding a new lexical item. While suffixes may or may not alter the word class of the derivate, prefixes in Swedish solely modify the meaning of the base they are attached to. Etymologically, one can distinguish native North Germanic prefixes (e.g., o-, van-, both ‘un-’), borrowings from classical languages (of Greek or Latin origin, e.g., pre-, hyper-) and prefixes borrowed from (Middle Low) German (e.g., an- or för-). Prefixes in Swedish can be divided in stress-bearing and non-stress-bearing. The group of non-stress bearing prefixes in Swedish comprises only two elements: be- and för-, both borrowed from Low German and used exclusively in verbal derivation. Stress-bearing prefixes can be added to nouns, adjectives or verbs (Teleman 1981: 69).

4.1. Nominal derivation Nouns in Swedish can be derived by adding a nominal suffix to a nominal, adjectival, or verbal base: land ‘land’ → landskap ‘landscape’, kär ‘loved/in love’ → kärlek ‘love’, arbeta ‘to work’ → arbetare ‘worker’, or to an univerbated phrase tre hjul ‘three wheels’ → trehjuling ‘tricycle’. The suffixes -are, -är, -er, -ist, -(at)or and -ör yield agent nouns. Adding the suffix -essa (from French), -inna, or -ska (both from Low German) to nouns denoting a male referent renders nouns denoting a female referent: lärare ‘(male) teacher’ → lärarinna ‘female teacher’. This word-formation pattern is not productive in present-day Swedish. The suffixes -d, -else, -ande/-ende, -eri, -het, -nad, -skap, and -t yield abstract nouns. The endearing suffix -is is highly productive: bäst ‘best’ → bästis ‘best friend’, daghem → dagis both ‘day-care centre’ (SAG 2: 40). Another colloquial suffix is the pejorative -o, which renders agent nouns: pretentiös ‘pretentious’ → pretto ‘a pretentious person’ (cf. Adelswärd 2001).

4.1.1. Suffixation Productive suffixes in nominal derivation comprise -het, -skap, -lek, -d, -ska, -ling/-ing, -(n)ing, -is (on the productive colloquial suffix -is, cf. Inghult 1968; Josefsson 2002). Nouns derived by adding one of the following productive suffixes -het, -dom, -lek, -skap, -(n)ing receive accent 2 (a two-peaked pitch rise) in standard Swedish: kär (accent 1) ‘loved/in love’ → kär-lek (accent 2) ‘love’. Accent 2 is characteristic of polysyllabic lexemes in Swedish, and can be assigned by a derivational suffix or even by an inflectional one. Loanwords like mobbing are realised with accent 1 (single-peaked pitch rise)

2564

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 142.5: Suffixes in nominal derivation Suffix

Base category

-are

N V [Q+N]NP [V+N]VP

apotek beundra tre master ha vårdnad

‘pharmacy’ ‘to admire’ ‘three masts’ ‘to have custody’

apotekare beundrare tremastare vårdnadshavare

‘pharmacist’ ‘admirer’ ‘three-master’ ‘guardian’

-är

N

motion

‘exercise’

motionär

‘amateur athlete’

-d

Adj

bred

‘wide’

bredd

‘width’

-else

V

baka

‘to bake’

bakelse

‘pastry’

-er

Adj

dum

‘stupid’

dummer

‘silly’

-eri

N V

pedant krypa

‘to crawl’

pedanteri kryperi

‘pedantry’ ‘servility’

-essa

N

prins

‘prince’

prinsessa

‘princess’

-het

Adj

jämn

‘equal’

jämhet

‘equality’

-(i)an

PropN

Wagner

Wagnerian

‘Wagnerian’

-inna

N

lejon

‘lion’

lejnoninna

‘female lion’

-is

Adj N

god mjuk lekskola

‘good’ ‘soft’ ‘day-care centre’

godis mjukis lekis

‘sweets’ ‘softie’ ‘day-care’

-ist

N

flöjt

‘flute’

flöjtist

‘flutist’

-lek

Adj

stor

‘big’

storlek

‘size’

-(l)ing

Adj

vek ful segla lära

‘soft’ ‘ugly’ ‘to sail’ ‘to learn’

vekling fuling segling lärling

‘softie’ ‘ugly person’ ‘sailing’ ‘apprentice’

överleva

‘to survive’

överlevnad

‘survival’

V

Base word

Derived noun

-nad

V

-(n)ing

V skriva [Adj+N]NP höga hjul

‘to write’ ‘high weels’

skrivning höghjuling

[Q+N]NP

fyra hjul

‘four weels’

fyrhjuling

‘test paper’ ‘high wheel bicycle’ ‘ATV’

N

sjukskötare sångare grön

‘male nurse’ ‘singer’ ‘green’

sjuksköterska sångerska grönska

‘nurse’ ‘female singer’ ‘verdure’

N

full aggressiv fet alkoholist

‘drunk’ ‘aggressive’ ‘fat’ ‘alcohol addict’

fyllo aggro fetto alko

‘drunkard’ ‘aggressive person’ ‘fat person’ ‘alcohol addict’

-skap

Adj N

bered vän

‘ready’ ‘friend’

beredskap vänskap

‘readiness’ ‘friendship’

-t

V

skriva

‘to write’

skrift

‘writing’

-ska

Adj -o

Adj

142. Swedish

2565

as long as speakers consider them to be loanwords, but receive accent 2 once speakers reanalyse them as native words comprised of a stem, e.g., mobb- to which the native accent 2-inducing suffix -ning is added, thus mobbing (accent 1) but mobb-ning (accent 2) (SAG 2; Söderström 2012: 8). Other productive derivational suffixes like -is do not induce accent 2. Derivational suffixes of Greek or Latin origin always bear the primary stress in a word, thus DOKtor ‘doctor’ but doktorAND ‘PhD student’ (capital letters indicate primary stress). Nouns like doktorand, dividend; leverans, konferens, debutant, konsument can be analysed as derived by adding a suffix -and/end, -ans/ens and -ant/-ent to a verbal base. However, all these words are borrowings from Latin (via French or German) and the distribution of the suffixes arises from their use in the source language. Alternatively, the distribution of these suffixes in Swedish can be described as lexically determined (SAG 2). The distribution of the homophonous suffixes -tion, -sion occurring only in loanwords is lexically determined by the form of the loanword in the source language. Thus we find -tion in operation, konsumtion ‘consumption’, edition vs. -sion in, e.g., revision. Other seemingly productive suffixes like -ator, -ör, -tor, -ent are either analogous formations (thus kopiator ‘copier’ is based on plagiator ‘plagiarist’; akupunktör ‘acupuncturist’ based on instructör ‘instructor’), or borrowed along with the whole lexeme: dissident, reaktor ‘reactor’. Adding a diminutive suffix to the altered stressed syllable of the given name can form hypocorisms in Swedish. Derived hypocorisms usually only allow short stem vowels, followed by a long consonant. In accordance with this rule, the length of any long vowel in the stressed syllable must be reduced while any single consonant following the stressed stem vowel has to be lengthened. Final consonant clusters are reduced to the final element in the cluster that is subsequently lengthened. The stem of a hypocorism may include an initial consonant or a consonant cluster, yielding a structure (C0−3)VCC (SAG 2: 127). A diminutive suffix is attached to the altered stem: typically -e/-an for male given names, and -(s)a(n)/-i for female ones. The suffix -an can occur with both male (Stig → Stick-an) and female given names (Betty → Bett-an). (12) hypocoristic forms of male given names Knut → Knut-te Olof → Ol-le Manfred → Mann-e Lars → Lass-e Robert → Robb-an (13) hypocoristic forms of female given names Gun → Gun-san Birgitta → Bigg-an, Margareta → Magg-an Ann-Kristin/Ann-Katrin/Annika → Ank-i Susanne → Suss-i, Katarina → Katt-i Surnames can be used as hypocorisms as well: here, the suffix -is attaches to the unaltered first syllable of the name: Lövgren → Löv-is, Eklund → Ek-is. Nouns derived by the suffix -o are bisyllabic and allow only for short stem vowels. Thus the base word may need to be shortened beforehand, as in neggo ‘negative person’ with a short vowel vs. a long vowel in its (clipped) base negativ ‘negative’.

2566

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

4.1.2. Prefixation Native prefixes used in nominal derivation in Swedish are shown in Table 142.6 (for borrowed prefixes and prefixes used in neoclassical word-formation cf. section 6). The prefixes icke-, miss- and van- negate the meaning of the base. The prefix gen- ‘re-/ against’ adds a reciprocal or a contrastive meaning, the prefix sam- ‘co-’ an associative meaning, and the prefix sär- ‘special/apart’ a deliminative meaning. Tab. 142.6: Prefixes in nominal derivation Prefix

Base word

Prefixed noun

gen-

gåva bo

‘gift’ ‘inhabitant’

gengåva genbo

against-gift ‘gift in return’ against-inhabitant ‘inhabitant of the flat/room across the hall’

icke-

rökare

‘smoker’

ickerökare

‘non-smoker’

miss-

förhållande

‘ratio’

missförhällande

‘disproportion’

o-

tur gräs

‘luck’ ‘grass’

otur ogräs

unluck ‘bad luck’ ungrass ‘weed’

sam-

liv

‘life’

samliv

‘cohabitation’

sär-

klass

‘class’

särklass

‘special class’ or ‘class of it’s own’

van-

heder makt

‘honour’ ‘power’

vanheder vanmakt

‘disgrace’ ‘powerlessness’

4.2. Adjectival derivation 4.2.1. Suffixation Adjectival derivation is achieved by suffixation and prefixation. Suffixes used for yielding deverbal adjectives comprise -lig, -sam, -bar, -abel such as skad-lig ‘deleterious’, prat-sam ‘talkative’, vrid-bar ‘turnable’, diskut-abel ‘debatable’. Denominal adjectives are derived by the suffixes -lig, -s, -isk, -sk: man-lig ‘manly’, flik-ad ‘patched’, geograf-isk ‘geographical’, tegnér-sk ‘Tegnerian’, göteborg-sk ‘from Gothenburg’. Adjectives can be derived from an adjectival base as well, using the suffixes -lig, -aktig: sjuklig ‘ailing’, sötaktig ‘sweetish’. Adjectives like stryktålig ‘tough, ruggedized’, gud(s)fruktig ‘god-fearing’, lättfattlig ‘easily comprehensible’ can be analysed as derived by adding the suffix -ig to an univerbated phrase with the structure [V+N]VP or [V+Adv]VP (SAG 2: 184). However, in all these examples, an alternative analysis is possible: Stryktålig can be analysed as a compound comprising of stryk ‘stroke’ as a nominal left constituent, and the adjective tålig ‘resistant’ as right constituent: [[stryk]N[tålig]Adj]Adj. Svenska Akademiens ordlista (SAOL 2006) lists several adjectives with a noun as first and tålig as second constituent: slagtålig ‘impact resistant’, stresstålig ‘stress resistant’, tvättålig ‘detergent resistant’. The adjective tålig ‘resistant’ for its part is derived from the verb tåla ‘to endure’ by the productive adjectival suffix -ig. The similar analysis holds for lättfattlig ‘(easily)

142. Swedish

2567

Tab. 142.7: Suffixes in adjectival derivation in Swedish Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived adjective

-aktig

N

mardröm

‘nightmare’

mardrömaktig

‘nightmarish’

-artad

N

pekpinne

‘pointer’

pekpinneartad

‘shaped like a pointer’

-bar

V

bära

‘to bear’

bärbar

‘portable’

-enlig

N

norm

‘norm’

normenlig

‘in accordance to the norm’

-ig

N V [Adj+N]NP

pop huttra blek nos

‘pop (music)’ ‘to shiver’ ‘pale nose’

poppig huttrig bleknosig

[Q+N]NP

tre spalter

trespaltig

[V+N]VP

frukta Gud tåla stryk

‘three columns’ ‘to fear God’ ‘to endure beating’ ‘to excogitate, invent’ ‘to comprehend easily’

gud(s)fruktig stryktålig

‘trendy’ ‘shivering’ ‘having a pale nose’ ‘having three columns’ ‘god-fearing’ ‘tough’

påhittig

‘inventive’

lättfattlig

‘easily comprehensible’

[V+Adv]VP hitta på fatta lätt -isk

N

film

‘film’

filmisk

‘cinematic’

-lig

N

landskap

‘scenery’

landskaplig

‘scenic’

-mässig

N

affär

‘shop, business’

affärsmässig

‘businesslike’

-s

[Q+N]NP

tre veckor

‘three weeks’

treveckors

‘three week’s (vacation)’

-sk

PropN

Mendel

mendelsk

‘Mendelian’

-t/-(a)d/-dd

V

larma

‘to alarm’

larmad

[Adj+N]NP

röd näsa lång hals brun öga torr sko

‘red nose’ ‘long neck’ ‘brown eye’ ‘dry shoe’

rödnäst långhalsad brunögd torrskodd

‘wired (to an alarm system)’ ‘red-nosed’ ‘long-necked’ ‘brown-eyed’ ‘having dry shoes’

comprehensible’: [[lätt]Adj [fattlig]Adj]Adj. Again, SAOL (2006) lists several adjectives with an adjective as the first constituent and fattlig as the second constituent: allmänfattlig ‘popular’ or svårfattlig ‘abstruse’. Påhittig ‘inventive’ is more probably derived from the verb påhitta ‘to invent’ to which the suffix -ig is added, thus [[påhitt]V-igAdj]Adj . Gud(s)fruktig ‘god-fearing’ can be analysed as derived from the compound noun gudsfruktan ‘fear of God’ a compound noun [[gud]N[s][fruktan]N]N to which again the suffix -ig is added. The proposed analyses differ from the ones in Svenska Akademiens Gram-

2568

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

matik (SAG 2 1999) but are consistent with the use of the productive adjectival suffix -ig in denominal and deverbal adjectives, and conform to the morpheme boundaries as marked in Svenska Akademiens Ordbok (SAOB 1893–) and in SAOL (2006).

4.2.2. Prefixation The prefixes used with an adjectival base (cf. Table 142.8) can be divided into two groups: negating and intensifying. The native prefixes o-, miss-, icke- yield adjectives with meanings complementary or contrary to the meaning of the base. Other prefixes with complementary semantics are in-/il-/im-/ir-, which are only used with bases of Latin origin, and a-, which occurs with bases of Greek or Latin origin (cf. section 6). Further neoclassical prefixes in adjectival derivation comprise the intensifying extra-, hyper-, super-, ultra-, ärke-, which however are only occasionally added to an adjectival base and are more common in noun derivation. Tab. 142.8: Prefixed adjectives in Swedish Prefix

Base word

Prefixed adjective

döds-

skön

‘beautiful’

dödsskön

‘very beautiful’

icke-

kyrklig

‘ecclesiastical’

ickekyrklig

‘non-ecclesiastical’

ill-

grön

‘green’ (only colour adj)

illgrön

‘poisonous green’

knall-

gul

‘yellow’ (only colour adj)

knallgul

‘bright yellow’

miss-

klädsam

‘becoming’ (clothes)

missklädsam

‘unbecoming’

o-

tålig

‘patient’

otålig

‘impatient’

pytte-

liten

‘small’

pytteliten

‘tiny’

sär-

svensk

‘Swedish’

särsvensk

‘typical only for Sweden’

stört-

skön

‘beautiful’

störtskön

absolutely beautiful ‘very beautiful’

The prefixes stört- ‘absolutely’ and döds- ‘death’s’ were originally used as a first constituent in compounds of the type AdvAdj and [N+Adj]NP, respectively, but have acquired an additional prefix-like intensifying meaning. In present-day Swedish, however, they are not as frequent in this function as the intensifying affixiods jätte- or skit-. The diminutive prefix pytte- ‘tiny’ (from pytte ‘small boy’) is only used with the adjective liten (pl. små) ‘small’. The use of the prefixes ill- ‘ill’ and knall- ‘bang’ is restricted to colour adjectives as bases.

4.3. Verbal derivation Derived verbs can be formed by adding a verb-yielding suffix to a base which belongs to one of the following word classes: nouns, adjectives, pronouns, or quantifier. The most productive verbal suffix is -a, which creates regular verbs of the verbal class 1:

142. Swedish

2569

mejl ‘e-mail’ → mejla ‘to e-mail’. Most prefixes used in verbal derivation are loans from (Middle) Low German or from classical languages, but the prefixes gen- ‘re-/ against‘ and the negating miss-, and van- are native.

4.3.1. Suffixation Productive suffixes in verbal derivation comprise -a, -na, -era, -isera, -(i)fiera of which -a is the most frequently used and renders denominal and deadjectival verbs. The suffixes -a and -na are of native origin while -era, -isera, -(i)fiera are loans from Latin (via Low German or French). Denominal and deadjectival verbs in Swedish become weak verbs of the sole productive conjugation 1. While verbs of the other conjugations show the suffix -a only in infinitives (cf. the conjugation 2 verb köpa (infinitive) ‘to buy’ − köper (present tense), köpte (past tense), köpt (supine)), conjugation 1 verbs retain the suffix -a in all their inflected forms: mejla (infinitive) ‘to e-mail’, mejlar (present tense), mejlade (past tense), mejlat (supine). The suffix -a in conjugation 1 verbs is notoriously difficult to analyse and has been classified either as an inflectional (e.g., Josefsson 1997) or as a derivational morpheme (e.g., Söderbergh 1968; Thorell 1981 and 1984; SAG 2: 36−37, 518−519). Teleman, Hellberg and Andersson (SAG 2: 519) consider verbs such as majla ‘to email’ (← mejl ‘e-mail’), bila ‘to drive a car’ (← bil ‘car’) or lugna ‘to calm’ (← lugn ‘calm’) as derivatives. The suffixes -era and -a can attach to a nominal base to render a derived verb: charma/charmera ‘to charm’, chocka/chockera ‘to shock’, skissa/skissera ‘to sketch’, bomba/bombardera ‘to bomb’, funka/fungera/funktionera ‘to function’. The shorter verbal derivates rendered by the suffix -a belong to a more colloquial style compared to the longer variants. In the case of funka/fungera/funktionera ‘to function’ there are even Tab. 142.9: Productive suffixes in verbal derivation Suffix -a

Base category N

Base word

Derived verb

Pro Q

bil tejp idrott lugn snål du en

‘car’ ‘tape’ ‘sports’ ‘calm’ ‘scrimpy’ ‘you.sg’ ‘one’

bila tejpa idrotta lugna snåla dua ena

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

-era

Adj N

intensiv motiv

‘intensive’ ‘motive’

intensivera motivera

‘to intensify’ ‘to motivate’

-ifiera

Adj

intensiv

‘intensive’

intensifiera

‘to intensify’

-isera

N Adj

pulver popular

‘powder’ ’popular’

pulv(e)risera popularisera

‘to pulverise’ ‘to popularise’

-na

Adj

kall

‘cold’

kall-na

‘to become cold’

Adj

travel by car’ tape’ go in for sports’ calm’ scrimp’ address informally’ unite’

2570

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

three levels of formality, fungera being the neutral term while funka is marked as colloquial and funktionera is only used as a technical term (SAOL 2006: 244). The suffix -era is used in higher registers due to its being attached mostly to bases of Latin origin, which in turn were associated with academic discourse. A productive suffix rendering deadjectival verbs with inchoative semantics -na include: svartna ‘to blacken’, kallna ‘to get cold’, mjukna ‘to soften’ hårdna ‘to harden’, (in)sjukna ‘to become ill’, (till)friskna ‘to convalesce’. Unproductive derivational suffixes in verbs with an inchoative or resultative meaning derived form adjectives comprise -ga, -ka, -ska, -ra, -sa, -ta as in vidga ‘to broaden’, svalka ‘to begin to cool’, torka ‘to dry’, minska ‘to reduce’, mildra ‘to soften’, snävra ‘to narrow’, rensa ‘to clean’, hetsa ‘to bait’, fetta ‘to grease’, hetta ‘to heat’. Swedish verbs can be derived from adjectives ending in -iv by adding either the suffix -era or -isera: effektivera/effektivisera ‘to make more efficient’, relativera/relativisera ‘to relativise’. Again, the longer form belongs to a higher register. The suffix -isera yields deadjectival (brutalisera ‘to brutalise’) or denominal verbs (pulverisera ‘to pulverise’, finlandisera ‘to finlandise’). Other adjectival and nominal bases require the suffix -ifiera, cf. personifiera ‘to impersonate’, russifiera ‘to russify’. The distribution of -isera and -ifiera is lexically determined.

4.3.2. Prefixation Prefixes can be added to a simplex verb skriva ‘to write’ → beskriva ‘to describe’, söka ‘to seek’ → ansöka ‘to apply for’, to a prefixed verb fördela ‘to distribute’ → omfördela ‘to redistribute’, or to a verb derived by suffixation finansiera ‘to finance’ → refinansiera ‘to refinance’, vård ‘to care’ → vårda ‘to take care of’ → vanvårda ‘to neglect’. The prefixes be- and för- are unstressed, while the others listed in Table 142.10 bear word stress. Tab. 142.10: Prefixes in verbal derivation in Swedish Prefix

Base word

Prefxed verb

an-

ropa

‘to shout’

anropa

‘to call’

be-

skriva

‘to write’

beskriva

‘to describe’

bi-

stå

‘to stand’

bistå

‘to support’

er-

nå

‘to reach’

ernå

‘to achieve’

för-

dela

‘to divide’

fördela

‘to distribute’

gen-

gälda

‘to pay’

gengälda

‘to repay’

hop-

skriva

‘to write’

hopskriva

‘to write as one word’

miss-

tolka

‘to interpret’

misstolka

‘to misinterpret’

sär-

skriva

‘to write’

särskriva

‘to write apart’

und-

vika

‘to give way’

undvika

‘to avoid’

van-

tolka

‘to interpret’

vantolka

‘to misinterpret’

veder-

lägga

‘to lay’

vederlägga

‘to refute’

142. Swedish

2571

The prefix be- renders transitive verbs from an intransitive verbal base: svara + PP → besvara + N ‘to answer’. The prefix för- alters the aktionsart (lexical aspect) of the verbal base it is added to: bränna ‘to burn’ → förbränna ‘to burn up’. The meaning of the derived verb can even be identical to the meaning of its base, cf. bestraffa=straffa ‘to punish’, but again, the derived verb is often associated with higher registers. Thus the prefixed verbs befläcka ‘to stain’ and förhjälpa ‘to help’ are marked for higher style than fläcka ‘to stain’ and hjälpa ‘to help’, which lack a prefix. Only the prefixes gen- ‘re-/against’, hop- ‘together’, miss- ‘wrong’, and sär- ‘special/ apart’ are native, an-, be-, bi-, er-, för-, sär-, van-, and veder- originally occurred in (Low) German loanwords but became common with native bases as well (cf. also section 6).

4.4. Adverbial derivation 4.4.1. Suffixation Adverbs in Swedish can be derived by adding an adverbial-forming suffix to a base belonging to one of the following word classes: nouns, adjectives, verbs, quantifier, pronouns, adverbs, or univerbated phrases. Suffixes used in adverbial derivation comprise -vis, -ligen, -en, -falt, -tals, -ledes, -lunda, -stans, -e, -s, -a of which only -vis, and to some extent -ledes are productive (cf. Table 142.11). Tab. 142.11: Suffixes in adverbial derivation in Swedish Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived adverb

-a

Adv Adj [Adj+N]NP

bort lik bar fot

‘away (movement)’ ‘similar’ ‘bare foot’

borta lika barfota

‘away (state)’ ‘equally’ ‘barefoot’

-e

Adv

ner ut

‘down (movement)’ ‘out (movement)’

nere ute

‘down (state)’ ‘outside (state)’

-en

Adj –ig

tydlig laglig

‘clear’ ‘legal’

tydligen lagligen

‘clearly’ ‘legally’

-falt

N Q

hundra många

‘100’ ‘many’

hundrafalt Mångfalt

‘hundredfold’ ‘many times’

-ledes

N

telefon land så lika

‘telephone’ ‘so’ ‘alike’

telefonledes landledes således likaledes

‘over the phone’ ‘overland’ ‘thus’ ‘likewise’

Adv -ligen

Adj

säker ny

‘certain’ ‘new, recent’

säkerligen nyligen

‘certainly’ ‘recently’

-lunda

Adv Pro

så några inga

‘so’ ‘some.pl’ ‘none.pl’

sålunda någorlunda ingalunda

‘thus’ ‘fairly’ ‘by no means’

2572

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 142.11: (continued) Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived adverb

-s

PP

ut om land

‘out of country’

utomlands

‘abroad’

-stans

Pro

någon ingen

‘some’ ‘none’

någonstans ingenstans

‘somewhere’ ‘nowhere’

-t

Adj Adv

snabb snar var

‘quick’ ‘quick’ ‘where’

snabbt snart vart

‘quickly’ ‘soon’ ‘whereto’

-tals

N

hundra

‘100’

hundratals

‘by hundreds’

-vis

N N Adv

nation hundra möjligt lyckligt

‘nation’ ‘100’ ‘possibly’ ‘happily’

nationsvis hundravis möjligtvis lyckligtvis

‘by country’ ‘by hundreds’ ‘possibly’ ‘luckily’

Deadjectival adverbs derived by -t are formally identical with the neuter form of the adjective. The -t derivation is a productive pattern, and even if the original adjective and the derived adverb are usually close in meaning (cf. snabb ‘quick’ → snabbt ‘quickly’), there are a few exceptions. Thus the adjective snar ‘quick’ is semantically only remotely related to the derived adverb snart ‘soon’ (cf. Thorell 1981: 154).

4.4.2. Prefixation In adverbial prefixation, the native prefixes mis- and o- are productive, yielding a negation of the base they are attached to. Tab. 142.12: Native prefixes in adverbial derivation in Swedish Prefix

Base word

Prefixed adverb

miss-

nöjd lyckad

‘content’ ‘successful’

missnöjd misslyckad

‘discontent’ ‘unsuccessful’

o-

lika gärna

‘same’ ‘willingly’

olika ogärna

‘differently’ ‘unwillingly’

5. Conversion Word-formation through conversion is usually regarded a special case of derivation (Booij 2007: 5). In conversion, the word class of a lexeme is altered without this being overtly marked on the lexeme itself. In Swedish, conversion renders nouns, adjectives and prepositions. Converted nouns derived from adjectives denoting a quality become neuter in gender. Converted nouns derived from adjectives denoting other properties are

142. Swedish

2573

Tab. 142.13: Conversion in Swedish Adj → N

ljus hög svensk liberal leende studerande

‘light, pale’ ‘high’ ‘Swedish’ ‘liberal’ ‘smiling’ ‘studying’

ljus hög svensk liberal leende studerande

‘a light’ ‘height’ ‘a Swede’ ‘a liberal’ ‘smile’ ‘student’

Adv → Adj

avsides

‘aside’

avsides

‘remote’

N → Adj

slut synd

‘end’ ‘sin’

slut sin

‘used up/at an end’ ‘pity’

of common gender. Adjectives converted from nouns can only be used in predicative position: Kaffet är slut ‘The coffee is used up’. When adjectives derived from adverbs are used as attributes in a noun phrase they do not usually show agreement in gender and number with the head noun: Det är ett avsides hus/en avsides stad ‘It is a remote house/city’ where hus ‘house’ is a neuter and stad ‘city’ a noun of common gender. An exception to this rule is the adjective (< adverb) lagom ‘just right’ which can show agreement with the head of the nominal phrase: Det är ett lagomt hus, Det är lagoma hus ‘It is a just-right house / They are just-right houses’ where the adjective hosts the neuter agreement suffix -t and the plural agreement suffix -a, respectively. Nouns can be derived from verbs in a process sometimes characterised as conversion (cf. SAG 2). The resulting nouns differ from the verb in lacking the verbal ending -a. If conversion is defined as a change of word class only (cf. Booij 2007: 5; Haspelmath and Sims 2010: 39, 324), such a difference can serve as an argument for analysing wordformation processes such as skrika ‘to shout’ → skrik ‘a shout’ or torka ‘to dry’ → tork ‘dryer’, not as instances of conversion but rather of derivation (cf. Thorell 1981: 85 and Thorell 1984: 76; cf. also Söderbergh 1968: 182−183 who only lists V → N conversions which fall under the definition of conversion cited above, e.g., röka ‘to smoke’ → ett röka ‘a smoke/a cigarette’). Present participles in Swedish are formed by adding the suffix -ande/-ende to a verbal base: skriva ‘to write’ → skrivande ‘writing’, le ‘to smile’ → leende ‘smiling’. Some present participles function as nouns as well and should thus be classified as instances of Adj → N conversion.

6. Borrowed word-formation and neoclassical word-formation During the Middle Ages, Swedish borrowed lexemes extensively from Low German. Frequent prefixes and suffixes in the borrowed contact language lexemes even became productive in Swedish. Some examples are the prefixes an-, be-, för-, und-, used in nominal and verbal derivation, cf. anropa ‘to call’, beundra ‘to admire’, förlust ‘loss’, undvika ‘to avoid’, and the suffixes -else, -eri, -ska used in nominal derivation, cf. födelse ‘birth’, bedrageri ‘fraud’, sjuksköterska ‘nurse’. The suffixes -else/-eri and -het yield abstract nouns, and the suffix -ska nouns denoting female human referents.

2574

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 142.14: Low German affixes in Swedish Affix

Base category

Base word

Derived word

an-

V

ropa

‘to shout’

anropa

‘to call’

be-

V

kämpa röra

‘to struggle’ ‘to move’

bekämpa beröra

‘to struggle with’ ‘to touch’

för-

V

driva

‘to drive’

fördriva

‘to drive away’

und-

V

vika

‘to back off’

undvika

‘to avoid’

ur-

N

bild

‘picture’

urbild

‘archetype’

-else

V

baka

‘to bake’

bakelse

‘bisquit/cookie’

-eri

N Adj V

förräddare pikant brygga

‘traitor’ ‘spicy’ ‘to brew’

förräderi pikanteri bryggeri

‘treachery’ ‘piquancy’ ‘brewery’

-het

Adj

stolt

‘proud’

stolthet

‘pride’

-ska

N-are

sångare sjukskötare

‘singer’ ‘hospital nurse’

sångerska sjuksköterska

‘female singer’ ‘female hospital nurse’

Some neoclassical elements are productive in Swedish word-formation, e.g., the negating in-/il-/im-/ir-, the intensifying hyper-, super-, ultra-, or the multiplying multi-, poly-, bi(on neoclassical word-formation, cf. Wollin 2009). Most of the prefixed neoclassical elements can be added not only to stems of Greek or Latin origin but to native ones as well, cf. ljud ‘sound’ → ultraljud ‘ultra sound’. Suffixed neoclassical elements on the other hand are usually only found in borrowed lexemes: an-arki ‘anarchy’, tele-fon ‘telephone’, holo-gram, tele-graf ‘telegraph’, euro-krat ‘Eurocrat’, bio-log ‘biologist’, automat, astro-naut, ergo-nom ‘ergonomist’. The neoclassical element -tek can be combined with native stems. Table 142.15 provides a (non-exhaustive) list of combining forms in neoclassical word-formation in Swedish. Tab. 142.15: Neoclassical elements in Swedish word-formation a-

asocial asymmetri

‘anti-social’ ‘asymmetry’

anti-

antirojalist

‘antiroyalist’

bi-

bipolaritet bikonkav

‘bipolarity’ ‘biconcave’

ärke-

ärkefiende

‘arch enemy’

ex-

expresident

‘ex-president’

extra-

extraförestälning extralång

‘extra show’ ‘extra long’

142. Swedish

2575

Tab. 142.15: (continued) il-/im-/in-/ir-

hyper-

illegal impopulär inaktiv irrational

‘unpopular’ ‘inactive’

hyperinflation hyperortodox

‘hyperorthodox’

hypo-

hypostas

‘hypostasis’

kontra-

kontraspionage kontraproduktiv

‘counterespionage’ ‘counterproductive’

krypto-

kryptofascist

‘crypto-fascist’

kvasi-

kvasifilosof

‘quasi philosopher’

makro-

makrokosmos

‘macrocosm’

maxi(mi)-

maxikjol maximistorlek

‘maxi-skirt’ ‘maximal size’

mikro-

mikrokosmos

‘microcosm’

mini(mi)-

minikjol minimistorlek

‘miniskirt’ ‘minimal size’

mono-

monocentrism

‘monocentrism’

multi-

mulitmiljonär multietnisk

‘multimillionaire’ ‘multiethnic’

poly-

polytheism polycyklisk

‘polycyclic’

pro-

prodemokrat

‘supporter of democracy’

pseudo-

pseudoproblem

‘pseudo-problem’

super-

supermakt supermodern

‘super-power’ ‘ultramodern’

ultra-

ultraljud ultralätt

‘ultra sound’ ‘ultra-light (adj.)’

-tek

lekotek (← lek ‘play’) klippotek (← klippa ‘to cut’)

‘play library’ ‘hairdresser’s shop’

7. Blending and clipping Compounding and derivation are word-formation processes, which yield longer lexemes. The word-formation processes blending and clipping on the other hand reduce the length of a lexeme. Clipping usually preserves the meaning of the original word while blending alters it. Shortening of lexemes often originates in colloquial speech or in the creation of brand names. Blending and clipping do not induce word-class change.

2576

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

The fusion of two separate lexemes into one yields lexical blends. Examples for blending in Swedish are svenska ‘Swedish’ + engelska ‘English’ → svengelska ‘Swenglish’, or kälta + gnata, both ‘to nag’ → tjata ‘to nag’ ( and before front vowels are pronounced alike in Swedish). Clipping is a word-formation method applied to form a shorter version of a word by omitting one or more syllables of it. Clippings can comprise the initial part (usually a syllable) of the original lexeme: biograf → bio ‘cinema’, the final part of the original word automobil → bil ‘car’, or both the initial and final part: livförsäkringsbolag → livsbolag ‘life insurance company’. The left constituent of a nominal compound can be reduced to its initial letter tunnelbana → t-bana ‘underground’, parkeringsplats → p-plats ‘car park’. Lexemes in Swedish can be abbreviated by reducing them to their initial letters which then can be read as an ordinary word (acronyms), e.g., Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget ‘Swedish Airplane Inc.’ → Saab [sa:b]. Alphabetisms on the other hand are abbreviated words formed by selecting the initial letters of a compound word or a phrase. The letters are pronounced with their value in the alphabet: Allmänna Idrottsklubben ‘The general sports club’ → AIK [a: i: ko:]. The alphabet value of the letters in some acronyms can even be spelled out: bh=behå ‘bra’, TV=tv=teve ‘television’. The name of the publishing house Esselte also belongs to this group: the original form Sveriges Litografiska Tryckerier ‘Sweden’s Lithographic Printing houses’ was abbreviated SLT, pronounced [es: el: te:] which subsequently was spelled Esselte (Thorell 1981: 162). For an analysis of clipping in Swedish compared to other North Germanic languages, cf. Nübling and Duke (2007).

8. References Adelswärd, Viveka 2001 Ord på glid. Stockholm: Bromberg. Allén, Sture, Martin Gellerstam and Sven-Göran Malmgren 1989 Orden speglar samhället. Stockholm: Allmänna Forlaget. Andersson, Peter 2003 Ordbildningselementet -vänlig: Om produktivitet, suffixstatus och grammatikalisering. In: Sven-Göran Malmgren and Arne Olofsson (eds.), Åtta ordbildningsstudier, 1−10. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet. Ascoop, Kristin 2005 Affixoidhungrig? Skitbra! Status und Gebrauch von Affixoiden im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Germanische Mitteilungen 62: 17−28. Booij, Geert 2007 The Grammar of Words. An Introduction to Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braunmüller, Kurt 2007 Die skandinavischen Sprachen im Überblick. Tübingen: Francke. Bruce, Gösta 1977 Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Malmö: Gleerup. Delsing, Lars Olof 2002 Svenskt foge-s. Folkmålsstudier 41: 67−78. Haspelmath, Martin and Andrea D. Sims 2010 Understanding Morphology. London: Hodder.

142. Swedish Hellquist, 1922 Hellquist, 1980 Herslund, 1993

2577

Elof Svensk ordbildningslära från historisk synpunkt. Lund: Gleerup. Elof Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Lund: Liber Läromedel. Michael and Finn Sørensen (eds.) The Nordex Project. Lexical Studies in the Scandinavian Languages. København: Institut for Datalingvistik, Handelshøjskolen i København. Hinchliffe, Philip and Ian Holmes 1994 Swedish. A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge. Inghult, Göran 1968 Ord med suffixed -is i svenskan. Språkvård 4: 9−15. Josefsson, Gunlög 1997 On the Principles of Word Formation in Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press. Josefsson, Gunlög 1998 Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word Formation in Swedish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Josefsson, Gunlög 2002 Tjänis, knäppis och brallis − om suffixet -is i modern svenska. URL http://person2.sol. lu.se/GunlogJosefsson/is.okt02.pdf [last access 11 May 2012]. Josefsson, Gunlög 2005 Ord. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Kürschner, Sebastian 2007 Grenzgänger zwischen Flexion und Wortbildung: Zur Geschichte des dänischen Fugen-s. In: Wolfgang Behschnitt and Elisabeth Herrmann (eds.), Über Grenzen. Grenzgänge der Skandinavistik. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Heinrich Anz, 349−367. Würzburg: Ergon. Kürschner, Sebastian 2010 Fuge-n-kitt, voeg-en-mes, fuge-masse und fog-e-ord: Fugenelemente im Deutschen, Niederländischen, Schwedischen und Dänischen. Ein Grenzfall der Morphologie im Sprachkontrast. In: Antje Dammel, Sebastian Kürschner and Damaris Nübling (eds.), Kontrastive Germanistische Linguistik. Vol. 2, 827−862. Hildesheim: Olms. Liljestrand, Birger 1974 Om svenska ord. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Liljestrand, Birger 1993 Så bildas orden. Handbok i ordbildning. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lundbladh, Carl-Erik 2002 Prefixlika förleder. Det svenska ordförrådets utveckling 1800−2000 (= ORDAT). Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet. Malmgren, Sven-Göran 1994 Svensk lexikologi. Ord, ordbildning, ordböcker och orddatabaser. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Malmgren, Sven-Göran 2002a (Pseudo)suffixen -enlig, -stridig och -vidrig i svenskan 1750−2000. Folkmålsstudier 41: 167−176. Malmgren, Sven-Göran 2002b Tendenser i svensk ordbildning 1750−2000. In: Svante Lagman, Stig Örjan Ohlsson and Viivika Voodla (eds.), Svenska språkets historia i Östersöområdet, 241−252. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. Malmgren, Sven-Göran and Arne Olofsson (eds.) 2003 Åtta ordbildningsstudier. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet. Mellenius, Ingmarie 1996 On noun-verb compounding in Swedish. Working Papers 45: 133−149. Lund: Dept of Linguistics, Lund University.

2578

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Noreen, Adolf 1906 Vårt språk. Nysvensk grammatik i utförlig framställning. Vol. 7. Lund: Gleerup. Nübling, Damaris and Janet Duke 2007 Kürze im Wortschatz skandinavischer Sprachen: Kurzwörter im Schwedischen, Dänischen, Norwegischen und Isländischen. In: Jochen A. Bär, Thorsten Roelcke and Anja Steinhauer (eds.), Sprachliche Kürze. Konzeptuelle, strukturelle und pragmatische Aspekte, 227−263. Berlin/New York: de Guyter. SAG 2 = Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg and Erik Andersson 1999 Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Vol. 2. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok. SAOB 1893− Ordbok öfver svenska språket. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien. SAOL 2006 Svenska Akademiens ordlista över svenska språket. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag. Söderbergh, Ragnhild 1968 Svensk ordbildning. Stockholm: Liber Läromedel. Söderström, Pelle 2012 Processing Swedish word accents. Evidence from response and reaction times. MA thesis, Centre for languages and literature, Lund University. Tamm, Fredrik 1900 Sammansatta ord i nutida svenska. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Teleman, Ulf 1970 Om svenska ord. Lund: Gleerup. Thorell, Olof 1981 Svensk ordbildningslära. Stockholm: Esselte Studium. Thorell, Olof 1984 Att bilda ord. Stockholm: Scriptor. Wessén, Elias 1943 Svensk språkhistoria. Vol. 2: Ordbildningslära. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Wollin, Lars 2009 Inlåning och användning av latinska ord under (yngre) nysvensk tid. Det svenska ordförrådets utveckling 1800−2000 (= ORDAT). Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.

Kristina Kotcheva, Konstanz (Germany)

143. Icelandic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Borrowed word-formation and neoclassical word-formation Blending and clipping References

143. Icelandic

2579

Abstract Icelandic is a settler’s language that has preserved many morphological features of Old Norse. Two main word-formation processes exist in Icelandic: derivation and compounding. In addition one finds several other less productive processes. Icelandic has a rich morphological system in nominals, with four productive cases − nominative, accusative, dative and genitive − and person, number and mood conjugation in verbs.

1. Introduction Icelandic is originally the language of settlers that immigrated to Iceland in the period of 870−930 AD. The majority of the settlers came from the districts of Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane in Norway. Among the settlers were also immigrants from Sweden and from Irish-speaking areas. Old Norse was the main language of this era; it had various dialects and is commonly divided into West and East Nordic. Icelandic is a West Nordic language, together with Faroese and Norwegian whereas Danish and Swedish are East Nordic languages. From around 1400 AD Old Norse developed into separate languages with individual distinctive features. In Norwegian, Danish and Swedish the distinction among case forms disappeared. In addition, several other inflectional changes took place. In Icelandic the case system has remained intact until the present day, and this holds to a certain degree for Faroese as well (see article 139 on Faroese). Going back to the 19th century, there is a fair amount of literature on Icelandic wordformation of different periods. A comprehensive picture of the development is provided in Kvaran (2005: 28−49). According to her, word-formation is mentioned in various textbooks, from the earliest writings in the 19th century and through most of the 20th century. Few of those publications are theoretical but a comprehensive discussion of derivation and compounding can be found in Jóhannesson (1927, 1929). Around 1980, there was a growing interest in word-formation in parallel with similar developments in other countries. The number of books and articles on Icelandic increased. Rögnvaldsson (1990) was a popular textbook in morphology at the University of Iceland. Other major publications were the multimediadisk Alfræði íslenskrar tungu (2001), with several chapters on Icelandic morphology, among other things one on word-formation by Bjarnadóttir (2001) and Kvaran (2005), a handbook of Icelandic morphology. Among other works and compilations on Icelandic morphology are Halldórsson (1969, 1976) on the productivity of foreign derivational suffixes and on the grammaticalization of words to derivational suffixes, Ingólfsson (1979) on the derivational suffix -ug and the productivity of the foreign suffix -heit, J. H. Jónsson (1980) on the semantics and function of the prefixoid hálf-, B. Jónsson (1984, 1987) on various types of compound words and on Icelandic word-formation in general, S. Jónsson (1984) on the difference between productive and “learned” word-formation, Konráðsson (1989) on possible types of compounds and derivations, Rögnvaldsson (1987) on various derivational suffixes and their frequency, Snædal (1992) on the possible length of words, Kvaran (1991−92) on adverbs ending in -is, Indriðason (1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011) on compounds and their relation to syntax, on the relation between morphology and phonology, on the productivity of various derivational suffixes from both a diachronic and a synchronic point of view and on linking compounds in Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic, Óskarsson (2006, 2009a, 2009b) on the nativization of foreign words and

2580

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

derivational suffixes, Bjarnadóttir (2000, 2002) on various types of compounds and derivations and Jónsdóttir (2005, 2006, 2009, 2010) on the role of the derivational suffixes -væða, -sl(i), -ing and -ung. Finally, a number of MA theses have been written on word-formation and related issues, both published and unpublished: Thorgeirsdóttir (1986) on prefixes, Svavarsdóttir (1993) on noun inflection, Indriðason (1994) on the lexical phonology of Icelandic, Theódórsdóttir (1996) on the genitive of weak feminine nouns, Gíslason (1996) on the classification of weak verbs, Halldórsson (2002) on the inflection of verbs in Icelandic, and Bjarnadóttir (2005) on compounding and derivation in the generative framework.

2. General overview In Icelandic, derivation and compounding are the two main processes used to expand the vocabulary. Traditionally, derivation is divided into prefixation and suffixation. Prefixation is used for various purposes, for example, to stress the meaning of the base word, like in bestur ‘best’ → lang-bestur ‘by far the best’, or to express the opposite meaning of the base word, like in þægur ‘obedient’ → ó-þægur ‘disobedient’. Derivational suffixes add meaning to the base word in a multitude of ways. In Icelandic, there are suffixes like -ari which forms agent nouns from verbs, as in baka ‘to bake’ → bak-ari ‘baker’, -ing which forms action nouns as in birta ‘to publish’ → birt-ing ‘publication’, and -ling which adds a diminutive meaning to the base word, as in diskur ‘disk’ → disk-lingur ‘diskette’. In Icelandic, there is also word-formation with affixoids (prefixoids and suffixoids). An affixoid is an intermediate stage between word and either a prefix or a suffix. It is not an independent word but has a somewhat richer meaning than ordinary affixes. Suffixoids get their full meaning only when they occur with the base word. Examples of word-formation with suffixoids are skóg-lendi wooden land ‘forest’ and ill-gresi bad grass ‘weed’ where the suffixoids are derived from respectively land ‘land’ and gras ‘grass’. Also, there are instances of word-formation which are neither prefixation nor suffixation. The change occurs in the base word itself. The base word can be shortened or clipped as in kalla ‘to call’, and kall ‘shout’, or the word-formation can be expressed by sound change as in brjóta ‘to break’ and brot ‘fracture’. Also, the word can be unchanged (conversion) like in koma ‘to come’ and koma ‘arrival’. Some derived words in Icelandic are the result of learned word-formation. Over the years, several attempts have been made to revive suffixes from earlier stages of Icelandic but most of them have failed. The suffix -ald is an example of such an attempt. The derived word mót-ald ‘modem’ was formed and presented as a neologism for a modern and widely used instrument. Several types of compounds exist in Icelandic. In the first place, there are stem compounds where two stems are joined as in hest-hús horse house ‘stable’. In the second place, there are so-called genitive compounds where the first part (the non-head, or modifier) has the genitive form independently of the case of the second part (the head). The genitival first part can either have the singular form, as in land-s-lög land laws ‘national laws’, or the plural form, as in orð-a-bók words book ‘dictionary’. This type of compound is interesting in that a non-head seems to be inflected. This has been seen as rather unusual from a linguistic point of view (see, e.g., Perlmutter 1988; Booij 1994

143. Icelandic

2581

and 1996). Genitive compounding is very productive in Icelandic, compared to similar processes in the neighbouring language of Faroese (see article 139 on Faroese, section 3.8). This could have something to do with the fact that the genitive in Icelandic is still actively used while the genitive in Faroese has for the most part disappeared (see Thráinsson et al. 2004: 248 and Indriðason 2011). In the third place, there are compounds where the elements a, u and i occur between the stems, but these elements are clearly distinct from the genitive endings. Examples are compounds like ráð-u-nautur (gen.sg. ráð-s, gen.pl. ráð-a) advice giver ‘advisor’, tóm-a-hljóð (gen.sg. tóm-s, gen.pl. tóm-ra) ‘hollow sound’, eld-i-viður (gen.sg. eld-s, gen.pl. eld-a) ‘fire wood’, rusl-a-fata (gen.sg. rusl-s) garbage bucket ‘rubbish bin’ and skell-i-hlátur (gen.sg. skell-s, gen.pl. skell-a) clapping laughter ‘good laugh’. The linking element can also be s- as in the compounds áhrif-sbreyting (gen.pl. áhrif-a) influence change ‘analogi’ and hræsni-s-fullur (gen.sg. hræsni) hypocrisy full ‘hypocritic’. Finally, so-called dative compounds can be mentioned (see Bjarnadóttir 2000). This is a small group of compounds where the non-head has the dative form and the head is a past participle, for instance fánum-prýddur flags decorated ‘decorated with flags’, gulli-blandaður gold blended ‘blended with gold’ and hugsjónumborinn ideals filled ‘idealistic’. These compounds resemble in many ways so-called incorporation, that is, the movement from verb (which is a participle form) + object to object + verb, as in [[prýddur]V[ fánum]Obj]VP → NV compound: [[fánum]N-prýddur]V]. In the recent literature, there are also discussions about the boundary between wordformation and syntax in Icelandic. There is considerable resemblance between certain genitive compounds and syntactic structures and Indriðason (1999) has argued that these structures are related in certain ways. An example of this is the relation between the genitive compound [[vél-ar]N-hljóð]N]N ‘machine sound’ and the syntactic structure with a nominal head and genitival complement, hljóð vél-ar ‘sound of a machine’. The former is a word-formation but the latter is a noun phrase with genitival attribute. One way of describing this is to say that the word-formation is the result of applying various operations to the syntactic structure (see Indriðason 1999: 137). Fairly recently, various examples of phrasal compounds have been documented. The non-head is often a syntactic phrase as in klippa-límaVP-verkefni ‘copy-paste project’ or an even more complex structure like in Maðurinn spilaði út bannað-að-gera-grín-aðfötluðum-spilinu ‘The man played his it’s-not-allowed-to-make-fun-of-the-handicappedcard’ (see Bjarnadóttir 2005: 121−125 for more examples and analysis). Some of these phrases have existed in Icelandic for a long time, like the genitival phrase sjö vikna in sjö-vikna-fasta ‘seven weeks fast’. Phrasal compounds are well documented in languages like English, Dutch and German (see Booij 2007, Meibauer 2007 and Sato 2010). They are interesting and challenge the ideas of those who believe that word-formation and syntax are two independent modules of grammar with their own rules and principles (see Bresnan and Mchombo 1995). And there are those who maintain that phrasal compounds show that word-formation must have at least a limited access to syntactic structures (see Sato 2010). In Icelandic, a common method to expand the vocabulary is by puristic word-formation. Its goal is to replace all foreign words in the language with freshly created Icelandic words. Over the years many such words, both simple words, derivations and compounds, have been formed and used. Here are some of them (the morphological structure is shown):

2582

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 143.1: Puristic word-formation in Icelandic Word-formation

Category N A A N N N A N A N N

sam-úð dæmi-gerð-ur rót-tæk-ur tölv-a þot-a fjöl-miðil-l van-þróað-ur tog-ar-i líf-ræn-n fúka-lyf smá-sjá

Glossary common-ness ‘sympathy’ example-made ‘typical’ root-admissible ‘radical’ ‘computer’ ‘jet’ multi-medium ‘mass medium’ ‘undeveloped’ ‘trawler’ ‘organic’ mould-medicine ‘antibiotica’ ‘microscope’

Another common method is to nativise imported compounds. Each part of the compound is then translated to Icelandic. Examples are aðgangs-orð ‘pass-word’, heila-þvottur ‘brain-wash’, örbylgju-ofn ‘microwave-oven’ and peninga-þvætti ‘money laundring’.

3. Composition Compounding is a productive type of word-formation in Icelandic. Two types are most common, stem compounds and genitive compounds. The third type, linking compounds, is not as productive as the others. The compounds are mostly right-headed and they can be nouns, adjectives, verbs, numerals, adverbs and prepositions.

3.1. Nominal compounds It is possible to form the following types of nominal compounds in Icelandic: noun + noun (NN), adjective + noun (AN), verb + noun (VN), pronoun + noun (PronN), quantifier + noun (QN), adverb + noun (AdvN) and preposition + noun (PN). As mentioned in section 2, there also exist phrasal compounds with phrases in non-head position and a noun as a head. Tab. 143.2: Nominal compounds in Icelandic NN AN VN PronN AdvN QN PN

[[hesta]Ν[maður]N]N [[háa]A[loft]N]N [[sendi]V[bréf]N]N [[sér]Pron[viska]N]N [[heim]Adv[sókn]N]N [[þrí]Q[fótur]N]N [[á]P[veita]N]N

horses man ‘rider’ high ceiling ‘attic’ send letter ‘letter’ himself wisdom ‘eccentricity’ home fetch ‘visit’ three foot ‘tripod’ on distribution ‘irrigation’

The inflection (gender, number and case) is expressed on the last part of the compound. In addition to genitive compounds of the type NN, there are also genitive compounds of

143. Icelandic

2583

the type AN like sjúkra-skýli (sjúk-ur ‘sick’) patients shelter ‘shelter’ and holdsveikranýlenda (holdsveik-ur ‘leprous’) ‘leprouses colony’. Compounds where the first part coinflects with the latter part as in lang-a (nom.)-töng (nom.) long-pliers ‘middle finger’, in the accusative löng-u-töng, the genitive löng-u-tang-ar, are the result of univerbation, that is: [[langa]A [töng]N]NP → compound: [[langa]A[töng]N]N. In some compounds, individual word parts have coalesced into one in the course of time. As a result of that, language users do not have any knowledge of how the word was previously composed. Only historical grammarians or etymologists can figure out the original motivation. Examples of words which are simple words today but are historically compounds are fjós ‘cowshed’ < fé-hús ‘livestock house’, frjáls ‘free’ < frí-háls ‘free neck’ and Noregur ‘Norway’ < Norð-vegur ‘North road’.

3.2. Adjectival compounds It is possible to form the following types of adjectival compounds in Icelandic: noun + adjective (NA), adjective + adjective (AA), verb + adjective (VA), pronoun + adjective (PronA), adverb + adjective (AdvA), quantifier + adjective (QA) and preposition + adjective (PA). As in nominal compounds, the last part is marked for the inflection of the whole compound: Tab. 143.3: Adjectival compounds in Icelandic NA AA VA PronA AdvA QA PA

[[höfuð]Ν[lítill]A]A [[hvít]A[skeggjaður]A]A [[hreyfi]V[hamlaður]A]A [[sér]Pron[vitur]A]A [[nær]Adv[göngull]A]A [[ein]Q[fættur]A]A [[eftir]P[lýstur]A]A

head-small ‘small headed’ ‘white-bearded’ movement-restrained ‘handicapped’ himself-wise ‘eccentric’ near-walked ‘importunate’ ‘one-legged’ after announced ‘wanted’

Adjectival compounds inflect like simple adjectives, for example, by degree as in sérvitur (positive) ‘eccentric’ − sérvitr-ari (comparative) ‘more eccentric’ − sérvitr-astur (superlative) ‘most eccentric’.

3.3. Verbal compounds It is possible to form the following types of verbal compounds in Icelandic: noun + verb (NV), adjective + verb (AV), verb + verb (VV), pronoun + verb (PronV), adverb + verb (AdvV), quantifier + verb (QV) and preposition + verb (PV) (see Table 143.4). In general, this process is not very productive in Icelandic. Other examples of this type are: teppa-leggja (NV) carpet-lay ‘to lay a carpet (on)’, jóla-skreyta (NV) Christmas decorate ‘to decorate for Christmas’, kross-festa (NV) cross-fasten ‘to crucify’, áframsenda (AdvV) forward send ‘to forward’, sundur-greina (AdvV) apart analyse ‘to analyse’, heim-sækja (AdvV) home fetch ‘to visit’, fjór-falda (QV) ‘to quadruple’ and tilfæra (PV) to-bring ‘to state’.

2584

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 143.4: Verbal compounds in Icelandic NV AV VV PronV AdvV QV PV

[[tilrauna]N[kenna]V]V [[fljót]A[afgreiða]V]V [[bull]V[sjóða]V]V [[sér]Pron[merkja]V]V [[endur]Adv[greiða]V]V [[tví]Q[panta]V]V [[til]P[kynna]V]V

experiments-teach ‘to teach in an experimental way’ fast-expedite ‘to expedite fast’ bubble up-boil ‘to boil over’ himself-label ‘to label specially’ re-pay ‘to refund’ ‘to double-order’ to-present ‘to annonunce’

3.4. Numerals Numerals from 1 to 4 inflect for gender and case as in einn ‘one’ (m.) − ein (f.) − eitt (n.) and þrír ‘three’ (m.) − þrjár (f.) − þrjú (n.). Numerals from 20 and above are formed as coordinated phrases. The numeral 22 is read tuttugu og tveir ‘twenty and two’, 34 is read þrjátíu og fjórir ‘thirthy and four’, 903 is read níuhundruð og þrír ‘ninehundred and three’, i.e. with a compound word níuhundruð and coordination with the conjunction og. The following are the compound types possible in numerals with og: Tab. 143.5: Compound types in Icelandic numerals Compounding Coordination Univerbation Coord. + comp.

sex-hundruð ‘600’, átta-hundruð ‘800’, eitt-þúsund ‘1000’ tuttugu og tveir ‘22’, þrjátíu og þrír ‘33’, fjörutíu og fjórir ‘44’ tuttuguogtveir ‘22’, þrjátíuogþrír ‘33’, fjörutíuogfjórir ‘44’ sexhundruð og níutíu ‘690’

3.5. Adverbial compounds Adverbial compounds are not frequent in Icelandic, but examples include the following types: noun + adverb (NAdv), adjective + adverb (AAdv), adverb + adverb (AdvAdv), quantifier + adverb (QAdv) and preposition + adverb (PAdv). No examples of verb + adverb (VAdv) or pronoun + adverb (PronAdv) can be found. Tab. 143.6: Adverbial compounds in Icelandic NAdv AAdv AdvAdv QAdv PAdv

[[flug]N[leiðis]Adv]Adv [[rétt]A[hendis]Adv]Adv [[fram]Adv[vegis]Adv]Adv [[ein]Q[hestis]Adv]Adv [[um]P[fram]Adv]Adv

flight-ways ‘by air’ right-hands ‘with the right hand’ forward-road ‘from now on’ one-horse ‘travelling with one horse’ about-forward ‘extra’

3.6. Prepositional compounds There are not many compound words with a preposition in head position in Icelandic. Only one type seems to be dominant, i.e. with an adverb in non-head position (see Bjarnadóttir 2005: 120−121):

143. Icelandic

2585

Tab. 143.7: Prepositional compounds in Icelandic Preposition hjá ‘by’ á ‘on’ yfir ‘over’

Compounds

Examples

fram-hjá ‘past’ ofan-á ‘on top of’ út-yfir ‘along’

Þau óku framhjá bílnum ‘They drove past the car’ Jón lagðist ofaná manninn ‘Jón lay down on top of the man’ Þau sigldu útyfir fjörðinn ‘They sailed along the fjord’

3.7. Affixoids As mentioned in section 2, affixoids (prefixoids and suffixoids) are a kind of intermediary stage between independent words and affixes. Bjarnadóttir (2005: 227) lists a number of examples of suffixoids, divided into one type that forms nouns and another one that forms adjectives often with i-umlaut between the base forms and the suffixoid (base forms in parantheses): Tab. 143.8: Nominal and adjectival suffixoids Nouns -viðri (veður ‘weather’) -ræði (ráð ‘advice’) -hafi (hafa ‘to have’) -fari (fara ‘to go’) -lífi (líf ‘life’) -hýsi (hús ‘house’) -nefni (nafn ‘name’) -nætti (nótt ‘night’)

of-viðri til-ræði hand-hafi geim-fari harð-lífi hjól-hýsi upp-nefni lág-nætti

too much weather ‘tempest’ to attack ‘assault’ hand keeper ‘holder’ space goer ‘astronaut’ hard living ‘constipation’ wheels house ‘caravan’ up name ‘nickname’ low night ‘midnight’

hæg-gengur and-vana land-lægur ein-sýnn skyldu-rækinn marg-þættur gegn-sær ein-róma

slow going ‘slow’ without breath ‘lifeless’ land stuck ‘endemic’ one visioned ‘narrow minded’ duty fulfilling ‘conscientious’ many featured ‘complicated’ through seeable ‘transparent’ one voiced ‘unanimous’

Adjectives -gengur (ganga ‘to walk’) -vana (vanur ‘deprived of something’) -lægur (liggja ‘position’) -sýnn (sjón ‘vision’) -rækinn (rækja ‘pursue’) -þættur (þáttur ‘part’) -sær (sjá ‘see’) -róma (rómur ‘voice’)

Indriðason (2007) has argued for the grammaticalization of líki ‘as something else’, that is, its development from being an independent word to being a suffixoid or suffix. It’s not always easy to differentiate between prefixoids and prefixes but the following are probably prefixoids with nouns, adjectives and verbs as base words:

2586

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 143.9: Prefixoids with nouns, adjectives and verbs Prefixoids aðalbakframgagnhálf-

‘main’ ‘behind’ ‘forward’ ‘opposite’ ‘half’

Base word

Prefixoids afareftirfrumgjörhálflangmeðalofur-

‘very’ ‘after’ ‘original’ ‘totally’ ‘half’ ‘very’ ‘medium’ ‘super’

feitur lifandi ortur ólíkur íslenskur þreyttur stór ölvi

‘fat’ ‘living’ ‘composed’ ‘different’ ‘Icelandic’ ‘tired’ ‘big’ ‘drunk’

‘main thing’ ‘reverse side’ ‘frontal foot’ ‘retaliatory strike’ ‘half brother’

aðalatriði bakhlið framfótur gagnárás hálfbróðir

Base word

Prefixoids

Adjectives with prefixoids afarfeitur eftirlifandi frumortur gjörólíkur hálfíslenskur langþreyttur meðalstór ofurölvi

Base word

blóðendurfjarfrum-

‘blood’ ‘re’ ‘distance’ ‘original’

langa óma stýra semja

gjörharðhálfhríðkolnauð-

‘totally’ ‘hard’ ‘half’ ‘rapidly’ ‘totally’ ‘thoroughly’ ‘suddenly’ ‘repeatedly’

snarþrá-

‘thing’ ‘side’ ‘foot’ ‘attack’ ‘brother’

atriði hlið fótur árás bróðir

Nouns with prefixoids

‘very fat’ ‘surviving’ ‘original’ ‘totally different’ ‘half Icelandic’ ‘sick and tired (of something)’ ‘medium size’ ‘dead drunk’

Verbs with prefixoids blóðlanga enduróma fjarstýra frumsemja

eyða neita sjóða versna falla þekkja

‘to want’ ‘to sound’ ‘to control’ ‘to compose’ ‘to destroy’ ‘to deny’ ‘to boil’ ‘to worsen’ ‘to fall’ ‘to know’

gjöreyða harðneita hálfsjóða hríðversna kolfalla nauðþekkja

‘to want something badly’ ‘to echo’ ‘to operate by remote control’ ‘to write an original composition’ ‘to destroy completely’ ‘to deny vehemently’ ‘to half boil’ ‘to worsen rapidly’ ‘to totally collapse’ ‘to know thoroughly’

dýpka biðja

‘to deepen’ ‘to ask’

snardýpka þrábiðja

‘to deepen suddenly’ ‘to ask repeatedly’

3.8. Linking elements Several types of linking compounds exist in Icelandic. By linking element I mean all elements between stems in a composition. As mentioned before, there are genitive compounds where the non-head has the genitive form with diverse genitive endings, either singular or plural, and linking compounds with the linking elements a, i, u and s. In genitive compounds one finds the genitive endings existing in Icelandic:

143. Icelandic

2587

Tab. 143.10: Types of genitive compounds in Icelandic Gen. endings -ar -a -s -na -u -ur

Nouns with gen. endings vél-ar bók-a land-s nýr-na tölv-u næt-ur

(gen.sg.f.) (gen.pl.f.) (gen.sg.n.) (gen.pl.n.) (gen.sg.f.) (gen.sg.f.)

‘machine’ ‘books’ ‘land’ ‘kidneys’ ‘computer’ ‘night’

Genitive compounds vél-ar-hljóð bók-a-hilla land-s-lög nýr-na-aðgerð tölv-u-útskrift næt-ur-gisting

(nom.sg.n.) (nom.sg.f.) (nom.pl.n.) (nom.sg.f.) (nom.sg.f.) (nom.sg.f.)

‘machine sound’ ‘book shelf’ ‘national laws’ ‘kidney operation’ ‘printout’ ‘sleepover’

As can be seen above, genitive forms in non-head positions in compounds are identical to the genitive forms found in the inflectional paradigms of individual words. The linking compounds (see Kvaran 2005: 155) are often archaic as in the examples of för-u-neyti ‘entourage’, from the 19th century, eld-i-brandur ‘flaming tree’, from the 16th century or earlier, and tóm-a-hljóð ‘hollow sound’ from the 18th century. But there are also newer compounds like drekk-u-tími drinking time ‘pause’, fell-i-hýsi ‘tent trailer’ and dót-a-kassi ‘toy-box’, all from the 20th century. Finally, the linking element of s-compounds occurs where one could expect an inflectional ending (-a(r)) like in kúpling-s-diskur ‘clutch disk’ (?kúpling-ar(gen.sg.)-diskur). In other cases, an -s- is inserted after feminine nouns which have no genitive ending at all in the paradigm, like leikfimi (gen.sg.) – leikfimi-s-hús ‘gymnastics hall’ and keppni (gen.sg.) – keppni-s-skap ‘fighting spirit’ (see Indriðason 1999: 116−117). The s-compounds have become more frequent in recent years.

4. Derivation Derivation occurs in various forms in Icelandic. It can be prefixation as in bíll ‘car’ → einka-bíll ‘private car’ or dæma ‘to judge’ → for-dæma ‘to condemn’ or suffixation as in baka ‘to bake’ → bak-ari ‘baker’ and senda ‘to send’ → send-ing ‘shipment’. Derivation can also be expressed by means of a stem-internal vowel change of Indo-European origin but this type is not productive, bíða ‘to wait’ → bið ‘waiting’ and ljúka ‘to finish’ → lok ‘end’ or with i-umlaut and a suffix as in langur ‘long’ → leng-d ‘length’ or þungur ‘heavy’ → þyng-d ‘weight’. A prefixal formation is in the same word class as the base word, but prefixation changes the meaning in most cases. Konráðsson (1989: 11−14) divides prefixes in Icelandic into several semantic categories (but as mentioned before some of these can be defined as prefixoids). Prefixes are used to emphasize the meaning of the base as in afar- ‘very’, they can express negative meaning (van- ‘too little of something’ or ó‘dis-’), they can denote position (ná- ‘near’), time (ný- ‘newly’), quantity (marg- ‘poly-’), numbers (fjór- ‘four-’), the importance of something (höfuð- ‘main’), or detail (auka‘aside’). Prefixes can also express the dimension (risa- ‘gigantic’) and degree of something (hálf- ‘half’). They are also used to place strong emphasis on the meaning of the base word, as in óður ‘mad’ → band-óður ‘raving mad’, skamma ‘to scold’ → hundskamma ‘to scold forcefully’, fullur ‘drunk’ → blind-fullur ‘dead drunk’ and illur ‘furious’ → ösku-illur ‘absolutely furious’. Prefixes can vary in productivity (see, e.g., Thor-

2588

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

geirsdóttir 1986 and Konráðsson 1989: 17). Prefixes or prefixoids which seem productive are aðal-, einka-, grunn- and megin-, those which are most probably productive are lausa-, mis-, of- and vand-, those which are probably unproductive are auð-, dverg-, innand síð-. Prefixes which are clearly unproductive are að-, á-, eftir-, ger-, ná-, nær-, til-, tor- and van-. Suffixation can form a word of a different word class than the base word. It can, for example, derive a noun from a verb, but sometimes the word class does not change. Suffixes, like prefixes, can also derive a different meaning from that of the base word, for example, when a word denoting an agent or an action is derived from verbs, as in lækna ‘to heal’ → lækn-ir ‘doctor’ and skipa ‘to order’ → skip-un ‘order’, or an instrument, as in hreyfa ‘to move’ → hreyf-ill ‘motor’. Derivational suffixes, like prefixes, can vary in productivity. The suffix -leg- is probably the most productive one. Suffixes like -ari-, -ing-, -un- and -ug- are quite productive as well but their productivity is limited in many ways. The suffixes -ling- and -ul- are semi-productive and -ald-, -erni-, -indi- and -nað- have little or no productivity, i.e. they do not form new words in the language today (see, e.g., Indriðason 2008).

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Prefixation Table 143.11 displays a list of common Icelandic prefixes that attach to nouns (see Konráðsson 1989: 15−16): Tab. 143.11: Prefixes with nouns Prefix fá inn ofur til út yfir

Base word ‘few’ ‘in’ ‘super’ ‘to’ ‘out’ ‘over’

bjáni bær afl vist hverfi maður

‘fool’ ‘town’ ‘force’ ‘stay’ ‘district’ ‘man’

Prefixed noun fábjáni innbær ofurafl tilvist úthverfi yfirmaður

‘idiot’ ‘centre’ ‘superforce’ ‘existence’ ‘suburb’ ‘boss’

4.1.2. Suffixation There are numerous ways to derive nouns by suffixation. I will discuss four groups here: action nouns, agent nouns and instrument nouns derived from verbs; a group of suffixes that are grammaticalized words (see, e.g., Halldórsson 1976); suffixes that diminish the meaning of the base word; and suffixes that are not productive in modern Icelandic. A c t i o n nouns are formed with the suffixes -un, -ing and -ning:

143. Icelandic

2589

Tab. 143.12: Action nouns Suffix

Base word

Derived noun

-un

hlusta stækka

‘to listen’ ‘to grow’

hlustun stækkun

‘listening’ ‘enlargement, expansion’

-ing

senda binda

‘to send’ ‘to bind’

sending binding

‘shipment’ ‘binding’

-ning

lesa auka

‘to read’ ‘to increase’

lesning aukning

‘reading’ ‘increase’

Several suffixes can form a g e n t nouns. These nouns are in most cases derived from verbs with the suffixes -ari, -andi and -i, but also -il, -uð and -ul, where word-final -i, -r, -ur and -l are inflectional endings (see Jónsson 1987: 93−94): Tab. 143.13: Agent nouns Suffix

Base word

Derived noun

-ari

rita kenna telja

‘to write’ ‘to teach’ ‘to count’

ritari kennari teljari

‘secretary’ ‘teacher’ ‘counter’

-andi

stofna selja kaupa

‘to found’ ‘to sell’ ‘to buy’

stofnandi seljandi kaupandi

‘founder’ ‘seller’ ‘buyer’

-i

lækna

‘to heal’

lækni-r

‘doctor’

-il -uð

aka hugsa kanna

‘to drive’ ‘to think’ ‘to explore’

ekil-l hugsuð-ur könnuð-ur

‘driver’ (with i-umlaut) ‘thinker’ ‘explorer’ (with u-umlaut)

-ul

kveða

‘to assert oneself’

frumkvöðul-l

‘originator’

The suffix -ari can also derive an agentive noun from a noun, as in svik ‘betrayal’ → svik-ari ‘traitor’ and dómur ‘sentence, judgment’ → dóm-ari ‘judge’. It is also possible to derive agent nouns with the suffixoid -maður ‘-man’, cf. flug-maður ‘pilot’ and ökumaður ‘driver’. Additionally, one can derive agent nouns from compound nouns like geimfar ‘spaceship’ → geimfar-i ‘astronaut’, landnám ‘settlement’ → landnem-i ‘settler’ and farandsala ‘peddle’ → farandsal-i ‘peddler’. I n s t r u m e n t nouns are formed with the suffixes -i and -il: Tab. 143.14: Instrument nouns Suffix

Base word

Derived noun

-i

kæla geyma

‘to cool’ ‘to store’

kæli-r geymi-r

‘cooler’ ‘tank’

-il

hreyfa

‘to move’

hreyfil-l

‘motor’

Examples of suffixes which are former words are: -dóm, -skap, -leik and -átt. These suffixes derive nouns from nouns and adjectives and they often yield s t a t u s nouns and q u a l i t y nouns:

2590

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 143.15: Word-formation with derivational suffixes which were former nouns Suffix

Base category

-dóm -átt -skap -leik

A N N A

Base word sjúkur vinur drengur sannur

‘sick’ ‘friend’ ‘boy’ ‘true’

Derived noun ‘disease’ ‘friendship’ ‘honour’ ‘truth’

sjúkdóm-ur vinátt-a drengskap-ur sannleik-ur

Various suffixes and suffixoids have d i m i n u t i v e meaning. The suffix -ling is mainly used as a diminutive suffix, e.g., as in diskur ‘disk’ → disk-lingur ‘diskette’ and bók ‘book’ → bæk-lingur (with i-umlaut) ‘booklet’. But one can also use suffixoids like -korn, -nefna, -líki and -mynd, especially if one wants to express the diminutive feature in an ironic way, piltur ‘boy’ → pilt-korn ‘tiny boy’, tímarit ‘journal’ → tímarits-nefna ‘journal, only by name’, skáldsaga ‘novel’ → skáldsögu-líki ‘novel, only by name’ and móðir ‘mother’ → móður-mynd ‘mother, only by name’ (see Kvaran 2005: 133). Several suffixes are probably no longer productive in Icelandic: Table 143.16: Some non-productive suffixes in Icelandic Suffix

Base category

-erni -indi -nað

N A N

Base word faðir veikur dugur

‘father’ ‘sick’ ‘vigor’

Derived noun faðerni veikindi dugnað-ur

‘paternity’ ‘illness’ ‘drive’

Nouns are also formed by adding suffixes to compound words (see Bjarnadóttir 2005: 170−172). The following categories can be found: nominal compound + suffix, e.g., búfræði ‘agronomy’ → búfræð-ingur ‘agronomist’, flugumaður ‘infiltrator’ → flugumenn-ska ‘infiltration’; adjectival compound + suffix, e.g., arfgengur ‘hereditary’ → arfgeng-i ‘heredity’, einlægur ‘sincere’ → einlæg-ni ‘sincerity’ and einstakur ‘unique’ → einstak-lingur ‘individual’. Also, there are nouns derived from verbal compounds: bólusetja ‘to vaccinate’ → bóluset-ning ‘vaccination’, fjármagna ‘to finance’ → fjármögn-un ‘financing’ and dáleiða ‘to hypnotise’ → dáleið-ari ‘hypnotist’.

4.2. Adjectival derivation 4.2.1. Prefixation Prefixes with adjectives are, amongst others, the following (see Konráðsson 1989: 15− 16 and Kvaran 2005: 125−130): Tab. 143.17: Prefixes with adjectives Prefix af all

Base word ‘very’ ‘very’

gamall góður

‘old’ ‘good’

Prefixed adjective afgamall allgóður

‘very old’ ‘very good’

143. Icelandic

2591

Tab. 143.17: (continued) Prefix for sí tor út ör

Base word ‘pre’ ‘always’ ‘il’ ‘out’ ‘very’

Prefixed adjective

‘prophetic’ ‘green’ ‘literate’ ‘dead’ ‘small’

spár grænn læs dauður lítill

‘predictive’ ‘evergreen’ ‘illiterate’ ‘extinct’ ‘tiny’

forspár sígrænn torlæs útdauður örlítill

4.2.2. Suffixation The suffix -leg forms adjectives and is the most productive suffix in Icelandic, both historically and in the modern language (see Indriðason 2005, 2008). One of the main reasons for this high productivity is that the suffix derives adjectives from base words structured in various ways, as simple words or compounds, either stem compounds or genitive compounds. The suffix also derives adjectives from base words of different word classes, viz. nouns, adjectives, pronouns, adverbs and prepositions and possibly with verbs although such examples are not yet verified (-ur is an inflectional ending): Tab. 143.18: Variety of base words with the suffix -legBase category N A Pron Adv P

Base Word ‘age’ ‘brave’ ‘I’ ‘home’ ‘above’

aldur djarfur ég heima yfir

Derived adjective aldursleg-ur djarfleg-ur égleg-ur heimaleg-ur yfirleg-ur

‘old’ ‘daring, bold’ ‘like myself’ ‘domestic’ ‘superior’

Adjectives with -leg from verbs and prepositions are rare. Other suffixes that derive adjectives are as shown in Table 143.19, -ur and -l are inflectional endings (see Kvaran 2005: 139−142): Tab. 143.19: Derivational suffixes which form adjectives Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived adjective

-(a)ð

V

bila

‘to break down’

bilað-ur

‘out of order’

-ótt

N N

skalli flekkur

‘baldness’ ‘spot’

sköllótt-ur flekkótt-ur

‘bold’ (with u-umlaut) ‘spotted’

-sk

N N

Ísland Grænland

‘Iceland’ ‘Greenland’

íslensk-ur grænlensk-ur

‘Icelandic’ ‘Greenlandic’

-ug

N N

snjór máttur

‘snow’ ‘power’

snjóug-ur máttug-ur

‘snowy’ ‘mighty’

-ul

V N V

athuga svik fara

‘to check’ ‘betrayal’ ‘to go’

athugul-l svikul-l förul-l

‘attentive’ ‘deceitful’ ‘someone who travels a lot’ (with u-umlaut)

2592

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

The suffixes -látur, -rænn and -samur are all derivational suffixes grammaticalized from independent words in Old Norse (see, e.g., Halldórsson 1976 and Indriðason 2007). They derive adjectives from nouns and adjectives for the most part: blíður ‘tender’ → blíðlátur ‘tender’, geð ‘mind’ → geð-rænn ‘mental’ and góður ‘kind’ → góð-samur ‘kind’.

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Prefixation There are quite a few prefixes used with verbs (see Konráðsson 1989: 15−16): Tab. 143.20: Prefixes with verbs Prefix

Base word

af ‘off’ and ‘opposite’ auð ‘empty’ inn ‘in’ mis ‘mis’ tví ‘double’ upp ‘up’

stýra mæla virða leiða stíga borga skera

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

direct’ speak’ respect’ lead’ step’ pay’ cut’

Prefixed verbs ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

afstýra andmæla auðvirða innleiða misstíga tvíborga uppskera

prevent’ protest’ humiliate’ implement’ miss one’s footing’ pay the double’ harvest’

4.3.2. Suffixation In Icelandic, there are not many ways to derive verbs from base words. One can form verbs from a noun with conversion as in leir ‘clay’ → leir-a ‘to clay’. This is a common process in Icelandic, compare examples like borð ‘table’ → borð-a ‘to eat’, spil ‘cards’ → spila ‘to play cards’, útvarp ‘radio’ → útvarp-a ‘to broadcast’ and skíði ‘ski’ → skíða ‘to ski’. This type of word-formation is limited to nouns as base words. Another way is to derive verbs from adjectives with -na (see Kvaran 2005: 142). The adjectives are mostly colour words as in blár ‘blue’ → blá-na ‘to become blue’ and gulur ‘yellow’ → gul-na ‘to become yellow’, but they can also be of other types: fölur ‘pale’ → föl-na ‘to become pale’, kaldur ‘cold’ → kól-na ‘to become cold’. Recently, Jónsdóttir (2005) has discussed verbs derived from nouns with -væða ‘-ise’. This seems to be an innovation in Icelandic. -væða should probably be regarded as a suffixoid since it cannot occur as an independent word: Tab. 143.21: Word-formation with -væða Suffix -væða ‘-ise’

Base word raf ‘amber’ aumingja ‘weakling’ sjónvarps ‘television’ ESB ‘EU’ Laugavegs (street name) nútíma ‘the present’

Derived verb rafvæða aumingjavæða sjónvarpsvæða ESBvæða Laugavegsvæða nútímavæða

‘to install electricity’ lit. ‘to weakling-ise’ lit. ‘to television-ise’ lit. ‘to EU-ise’ lit. ‘to Laugavegur-ise’ ‘to modern-ise’

143. Icelandic

2593

4.4. Adverbial derivation 4.4.1. Prefixation Bjarnadóttir (2005: 150−151) lists a number of prefixes that attach to adverbs: Tab. 143.22: Prefixes with adverbs Prefix

Base word

Prefixed adverb

and

‘opposite’

fætis spænis

‘foot’ ‘unclear direction’

andfætis andspænis

‘positioned head to toe’ ‘opposite, facing’

fjar

‘distance’

lendis

‘land’

fjar-lendis

‘abroad’

fjöl

‘multi’

víða

‘far and wide’

fjölvíða

‘in many places’

for

‘pre’

dyris

‘door’

fordyris

‘in front of the door’

mis

‘varying’

lengi

‘long time’

mislengi

‘various amounts of time’

ó

‘not’

keypis

‘buy’

ókeypis

‘free of charge’

sam

‘same’

aldra hliða

‘age’ ‘side’

samaldra samhliða

‘of the same age’ ‘parallel’

4.4.2. Suffixation Few suffixes form adverbs in Icelandic. From most if not all adjectives in -leg one can form adverbs by adding the suffix -a. Suffixation with -is is also quite common (see Kvaran 1990−91) but not as productive as with a. Their base words are for the most parts adjectives: Tab. 143.23: Suffixes that form adverbs Suffix

Base category

Base word

Derived adverb

-a

A A A

hræðilegur vinalegur djarflegur

‘terrible’ ‘friendly’ ‘bold’

hræðilega vinalega djarflega

‘terribly’ ‘in a friendly manner’ ‘boldly’

-is

N A

flugleið erlendur

‘flight route’ ‘foreign’

flugleiðis erlendis

‘by plane’ ‘abroad’

In addition to these suffixes, there exist some adverbial compounds where the nature of the adverbial part is unclear. Bjarnadóttir (2005: 123) argues that these parts are fixed or semi-fixed oblique case forms used as adverbs, but they can also be considered as suffixoids:

2594

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Tab. 143.24: Adverbs formed with fixed case forms or suffixoids Suffixoids

Base category

Base word

Derived adverb

-konar

‘kind of’

Pron

margur

‘many’

margskonar

‘various’

-skips

‘ship’

A

miður

‘middle’

miðskips

‘in the middle of the ship’

-staðar

‘place’

Pron

neinn

‘nobody’

neinsstaðar

‘nowhere’

-sumars

‘sommer’

Adv

snemma

‘early’

snemmsumars

‘early sommer’

-tíma

‘time’

Pron

einhver

‘someone’

einhverntíma

‘one day’

-vega

‘road’

P

af

‘off’

afvega

‘lost (one’s way)’

-vegar

‘road’

Pron

hinn

‘other’

hinsvegar

‘on the other side’

5. Conversion In Icelandic, one can find various examples of conversion, i.e. derivations where no material is added to the base word (see, e.g., Booij 2007: 5, 311). Conversion is for the most part a derivation between verb and noun but the direction isn’t always clear. Here are some examples that most likely show the direction from verb to noun: Tab. 143.25: Conversion from verb to noun Verb koma þvæla ríma sturta (niður) sýsla

Noun ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

come’ talk nonsense’ rhyme’ flush (down)’ work’

‘arrival’ ‘nonsense’ ‘Icelandic ballad’ ‘shower’ ‘administrative district’

koma þvæla ríma sturta sýsla

And the following are most likely examples of conversion from noun to verb: Tab. 143.26: Conversion from noun to verb Noun perla leira pípa messa glósa

Verb ‘pearl’ ‘clayey ground’ ‘pipe’ ‘mass’ ‘comment’

perla leira pípa messa glósa

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

put pearls together’ build something from clay’ bluster’ say mass’ write down comments’

143. Icelandic

2595

6. Borrowed word-formation and neoclassical word-formation The following types of combination of native and non-native base words and derivational suffixes are found (from Indridason 2005: 59−61, 2008: 109−111; see also Halldórsson 1969): Tab. 143.27: Types of native and non-native base words and derivational suffixes in Icelandic Types of combination

Word-formation

Base word

Native base word + non-native suffix:

dugleg-heit

‘effectiveness’

duglegur

‘effective’

Non-native base word + non-native suffix:

skikk-elsi

‘figure’

skikka

‘to give an order’

Non-native base word + native suffix:

dubb-un

‘dubbing’

dubba

‘to dubb’

Despite a strict purist language policy in Iceland, there are a considerable number of non-native or borrowed derivational suffixes in the language. Most of them only occur with their non-native base words, like -sjón ‘-tion’ and -elsi (Danish -else) in spekúlasjón ‘speculation’ from the 19th century, inspírasjón ‘inspiration’ from the 20th century, skrífelsi ‘written text’ from the 16th century and sinnelsi ‘anger’ from the 17th century (all datings of examples in this section are approximations). Some derivational suffixes have had a different development. Although, to begin with, they form derived words from non-native base words, they have also over time started to form derived words from native base words. A typical example is the suffix -heit, originally from German, but with Danish as an intermediary language. In the period from the 16th to the 20th century we find the following examples of -heit with non-native base words: frí-heit ‘freedom’ (16th c.), hög-heit ‘highness’ (17th c.), besverlig-heit ‘difficulties’ (18th c.), viktug-heit ‘importance’ (19th c.), and pliktug-heit ‘duties’ (20th c.). Relatively early in Icelandic, -heit became productive with native base words (see Ingólfsson 1979: 50) and we find the following examples: heimska ‘stupid’ → heimsku-heit ‘stupidity’ (16th c.), föðurlegur ‘fatherly’→ föðurleg-heit ‘a sense of fatherhood’ (17th c.), bágur ‘miserable’ → bág-heit ‘miserability’ (18th c.), duglegur ‘efficient’ → dugleg-heit ‘effectiveness’ (19th c.), and sérkennilegur ‘peculiar’ → sérkennileg-heit ‘peculiarity’ (20th c.). Halldórsson (1969: 93−98 and 100−102) also discusses the status of non-native suffixes like -erí and -ía and presents examples where they attach to native bases: lóða ‘to skirt chase’ → lóð-erí ‘skirt-chasing’, kenndur ‘mildly drunk’ → kend-erí ‘binge’, bila ‘to fail’ → bil-erí ‘breakdown’ and gott ‘candy’ → gott-erí ‘candy’. Derivations with -ía are: óráð ‘delirium’ → óráðs-ía ‘disorder’ and slen ‘sluggishness’ → slens-ía ‘under the weather’. An interesting example from modern Icelandic is the use of the borrowed suffix -isti with native base words as in jafnrétti ‘equality’ → jafnréttis-isti ‘equal rightist’ or sjónvarp ‘TV’ → sjónvarps-isti ‘TV-addict’. These formations are relatively new indicating an ongoing change from non-native to native base words. In Icelandic there are also quite a lot of examples of hybrid compounds where the first part is non-native and the second part is native (see Bjarnadóttir 2005: 148): astralheimur ‘astralworld’, glaxó-mjólk ‘Glaxomilk’, medister-pylsa ‘medister sausage’ and tsetse-fluga ‘tsetse-fly’.

2596

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Non-native prefixes occur for the most part in the areas of chemistry and physics, in words like: desí-meter ‘decimeter’, infra-rauður ‘infrared’, mega-tonn ‘megaton’ and últra-fjólublár ‘ultra violet’.

7. Blending and clipping Blending is a way to increase the vocabulary as in breakfast + lunch → brunch in English. This process is not common in Icelandic but an example like skaffall ‘saladfork’ occurs though, formed from skeið ‘spoon’ and gaffall ‘fork’. Kvaran (2005: 119) lists examples of various clippings. In the first place there exist clippings or shortenings where neither word class nor meaning changes (-i and -a are inflectional endings): Tab. 143.28: Clipping without any change in word class Noun alkóhólisti Trabant prófessor fáviti hjúkrunarkona keisaraskurður inflúensa

Noun ‘alcoholic’ ‘car type’ ‘professor’ ‘imbecile’ ‘nurse’ ‘caeserian section’ ‘flu’

alk-i Trabb-i proff-i fáv-i hjúkk-a keisar-i (can also mean ‘emperor’) flens-a

In the second place, the suffix -ó is used to shorten the word and forms nouns and adjectives (see Jones 1964). The suffix does not stand for any fixed part of a word as shown below: Tab. 143.29: Clippings where -ó replaces various parts of words Noun menntaskóli strætisvagn

Noun ‘high school’ ‘bus’

Adjective sveitalegur hallærislegur

mennt-ó stræt-ó Adjective

‘provincial’ ‘lousy’

sveit-ó hall-ó

-ó replaces -askóli -isvagn -ó replaces -alegur -ærislegur

In the third place, it is common to shorten names of individuals to use as hypocoristic or nicknames. If the names are disyllabic then the nick name is derived from either the first part or the second part of the name, usually with a weak inflectional ending (-a and -i), as in Kristín → Stína, Þorsteinn → Steini, Kristján → Stjáni, Hafþór → Haffi and Hrafnhildur → Habba.

143. Icelandic

2597

8. References Alfræði íslenskrar tungu [multimedia disc] 2001 Ed. by Heimir Pálsson and Þórunn Blöndal. Reykjavík: Lýðveldissjóður. Bjarnadóttir, Kristín 2000 Þágufallssamsetningar í ritmálssafni Orðabókar Háskólans. www.lexis.hi.is/kristinb/ datsams.html [last access 10 July 2015]. Bjarnadóttir, Kristín 2001 Orðmyndun. In: Heimir Pálsson and Þórunn Blöndal (eds.), Alfræði íslenskrar tungu. Reykjavík: Lýðveldissjóður [multimedia disc without page markings]. Bjarnadóttir, Kristín 2002 A Short Description of Icelandic Compounds. http://lexis.hi.is/kristinb/comp-short.pdf [last access 10 July 2015]. Bjarnadóttir, Kristín 2005 Afleiðsla og samsetning í generatífri málfræði og greining á íslenskum gögnum. Reykjavík: Orðabók Háskólans. Booij, Geert 1994 Against split morphology. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 27−50. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Booij, Geert 1996 Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1−16. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Booij, Geert 2007 The Grammar of Words. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bresnan, Joan and Sam Mchombo 1995 The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 181−254. Gíslason, Jón 1996 Beygingarflokkun veikra sagna. MA thesis, Department of Icelandic language and literature, University of Iceland, Reykjavík. Halldórsson, Gunnar Þorsteinn 2002 Sagnagrunnur. 1888. Um sagnbeygingu í íslensku. MA thesis, Department of Icelandic language and literature, University of Iceland, Reykjavík. Halldórsson, Halldór 1969 Nokkur erlend viðskeyti í íslenzku og frjósemi þeirra. In: Bjarni Guðnason, Halldór Halldórsson and Jónas Kristjánsson (eds.), Einarsbók. Afmæliskveðja til Einars Ól. Sveinssonar 12. desember 1969, 71−106. Reykjavík: Nokkrir vinir. Halldórsson, Halldór 1976 Falling down to a suffix status: A morphosemantic study. In: Lars Svenson (ed.), Nordiska studier i filologi och lingvistik. Festskrift tillägnad Gösta Holm på 60-årsdagen den 8. juli 1976, 162−172. Lund: Bloms Boktryker. Indriðason, Þorsteinn G. 1994 Regluvirkni í orðasafni og utan þess. Um lexíkalska hljóðkerfisfræði íslensku. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. Indriðason, Þorsteinn G. 1999 Um eignarfallssamsetningar og aðrar samsetningar í íslensku. Íslenskt mál 21: 107−150. Indriðason, Þorsteinn G. 2000a Derivational suffixes in Icelandic: Changes and clines. In: Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir (ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, 275−285. Reykjavik: University of Iceland.

2598

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Indo-European

Indriðason, Þorsteinn G. 2000b Fonologi møter morfologi: Om blokkering av fonologiske regler i islandsk. Nordica Bergensia 23: 165−187. Indriðason, Þorsteinn G. 2005 Historisk produktivitet. Nordica Bergensia 32: 39−65. Indriðason, Þorsteinn G. 2007 Um líki í íslensku í ýmiss konar líki. Íslenskt mál 28: 95−111. Indriðason, Þorsteinn G. 2008 Um virkar og frjósamar orðmyndunarreglur í íslensku. Íslenskt mál 30: 93−120. Indriðason, Þorsteinn G. 2011 Om fugesammensetninger i vestnordisk. In: Gunnstein Akselberg and Edit Bugge (eds.), Vestnordisk språkkontakt gjennom 1200 år, 257−275. Tórshavn: Fróðskapur, Faroe University Press. Ingólfsson, Gunnlaugur 1979 Lítið eitt um lýsingarorð sem enda á -ugur. Íslenskt mál 1: 43−55. Jóhannesson, Alexander 1927 Die Suffixe im Isländischen. Reykjavík: Árbók Háskóla Íslands. Jóhannesson, Alexander 1929 Die Komposita im Isländischen. Reykjavík: Rit Vísindafélags Íslendinga IV. Jones, Oscar 1964 Icelandic Neologisms in -ó. Scandinavian Studies 20: 18−27. Jónsdóttir, Margrét 2005 Um væða og væðingu og hlutverk þeirra í samsetningum. Orð og tunga 7: 95−120. Jónsdóttir, Margrét 2006 Viðskeytið -rænn í íslensku nútímamáli. In: Malan Marnersdóttir, Leyvoy Joensen, Dagný Kristjánsdóttir and Anfinnur Johansen (eds.), Bókmenntaljós. Heiðursrit til Turið Sigurðardóttur, 285−299. Tórshavn: Felagið Fróðskapur. Faroe University Press. Jónsdóttir, Margrét 2009 Um hvorugkynsorð með viðskeytinu -sl(i) í nútímamáli. Íslenskt mál 31: 149−166. Jónsdóttir, Margrét 2010 Beyging orða með viðskeytunum -ing og -ung: Söguleg þróun. Orð og tunga 12: 83− 108. Jónsson, Baldur 1984 Samsett nafnorð með samsetta liði: Fáeinar athuganir. In: Bernt Fossestøl, Kjell Ivar Vannebo, Kjell Venås and Finn-Erik Vinje (eds.), Festskrift til Einar Lundeby, 3. október 1984, 158−174. Oslo: Novus. Jónsson, Baldur 1987 Íslensk orðmyndun. Andvari: Nýr flokkur 29: 88−103. Jónsson, Jón Hilmar 1980 Um merkingu og hlutverk forliðarins hálf-. Íslenskt mál 2: 119−149. Jónsson, Sigurður 1984 Af hassistum og kontóristum. Íslenskt mál 6: 155−166. Konráðsson, Sigurður 1989 Um orðmyndun í íslensku. Ms., Kennaraháskóla Íslands, Reykjavík. Kvaran, Guðrún 1990–91 Um atviksorð sem enda á -is. Íslenskt mál 12−13: 7−29. Kvaran, Guðrún 2005 Orð. Handbók um beygingar- og orðmyndunarfræði. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið. Meibauer, Jörg 2007 How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Qinteraction. Morphology 17: 233−259.

143. Icelandic

2599

Óskarsson, Veturliði G. 2006 Af tveim tökuviðskeytum. Íslenskt mál 28: 79−93. Óskarsson, Veturliði G. 2009a Annarleg sprek á ókunnri strönd. Orð og tunga 11: 17−44. Óskarsson, Veturliði G. 2009b Um sögnina blífa, vöxt hennar og viðgang í íslensku. Íslenskt mál 31: 189−224. Perlmutter, David M. 1988 The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In: Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 79−99. San Diego: Academic Press. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur 1987 Nokkur viðskeyti og tíðni þeirra. Morgunblaðið May 15th. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur 1990 Íslensk orðhlutafræði. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. Sato, Yosuke 2010 Complex phrase structures within morphological words: Evidence from English and Indonesian. Lingua 120: 379−407. Snædal, Magnús 1992 Hve langt má orðið vera? Íslenskt mál 14: 173−207. Svavarsdóttir, Ásta 1993 Beygingakerfi nafnorða í nútímaíslensku. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. Theódórsdóttir, Guðrún 1996 Hosnasterta. Um -a og -na endingar eignarfalls fleirtölu veikra kvenkynsorða. MA thesis, Department of Icelandic language and literature, University of Iceland, Reykjavík. Thorgeirsdóttir, Sigrún 1986 Um forskeyti í íslensku. MA thesis, Department of Icelandic language and literature, University of Iceland, Reykjavík. Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjálmar P. Petersen, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen and Zakaris Svabo Hansen 2004 Faroese. An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.

Þorsteinn G. Indriðason, Bergen (Norway)

Romance 144. Portuguese 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping References

Abstract Following a brief survey of previous research and a summary description of the main topics in Portuguese word-formation, the major sections of this article provide an overview of word-formation patterns in Modern Portuguese, with examples taken from both the European and the Brazilian dialect. Occasionally, comparisons are established with other (Romance) languages, especially Spanish.

1. Introduction Until recently, Portuguese − together with Romanian − has undoubtedly been the poor relative in the Romance language family as far as the study of word-formation is concerned. Whereas the other great languages of Latin descent have a long research tradition focusing on the patterns and/or principles according to which their lexical resources can be enlarged, research on word-formation in Portuguese did not really begin until the 1980s. The existence of individual works, such as Said Ali’s (1923) brief, but nonetheless insightful description of word-formation in Old Portuguese, Allen’s (1966 [1941]) book on suffixation or Piel’s articles (1940a and b) on place nouns/agent nouns and abstract nouns, to name but a few, does not contradict the above statement, because none of them goes beyond the analysis of clearly defined topics. Sandmann’s (1989 [1986]) corpus-based doctoral dissertation marked the beginning of a new era in that it presented for the first time an overview of word-formation patterns in Portuguese, but limited itself to the overseas dialect spoken in Brazil. Special mention must be made of Cunha and Cintra’s (1984) Nova Gramática do Português Contemporâneo, which included an outline of the main word-formation processes and is still often referred to in the literature on Portuguese morphology. The more recent but very small books by Brazilian scholars − Khedi (1992), Pilla (2002) and Basilio (2004) − offer authentic examples regarding lexical creativity in

144. Portuguese

2601

Brazilian Portuguese, but cannot compensate for the lack of a comprehensive description of Portuguese word-formation. In Portugal, research has become more intense since the 1990s, thanks to works by Rio-Torto and her disciples at Coimbra university (for a research report see Rio-Torto 2007 and the references cited therein). Their indefatigable activity has recently been crowned by the publication of a comprehensive handbook on Portuguese word-formation (Rio-Torto et al. 2013). In light of the close genealogical and typological relationship between Spanish and Portuguese, works on Portuguese word-formation frequently make reference to the situation in Spanish and research on this language. Several fundamental problems being common to both languages (amongst them the description of -mente adverbs, the nature of the first constituent of verb-noun compounds, the status of circumfixation/parasynthesis, etc.), we will occasionally refer to Spanish as well. Since the two major dialects of Portuguese, i.e. European and Brazilian Portuguese, display slight differences in word-formation (e.g., preference for certain patterns or formatives), we will mark examples from European Portuguese with “EPg.”, whereas “BPg.” specifically refers to data from the overseas dialect.

2. General overview Portuguese is a “derivation-friendly” language with a rich inventory of productive suffixes and prefixes, especially for the formation of nouns, adjectives, and verbs. Derivation can be category-changing (lembrança ‘remembrance’ ← lembrar ‘to remind’) or not (casinha ‘house.DIM’ ← casa ‘house’). The question of whether prefixation may be a category-changing operation is controversial. With respect to a special group of “adjectives” which appear as NP-modifiers (for example, in depressãoN [pós[partoN]]A ‘post-partum depression’) it is claimed that a prefix can turn a noun into an adjective (see section 4.2.1 for details). Circumfixation/parasynthesis (cf. Rio-Torto 1998b and article 29 on parasynthesis in Romance for an overview), conceived of as the simultaneous application of two wordformation processes to a base (prefixation and suffixation as in en-riqu-ec-er ‘to enrich, get rich’ ← rico ‘rich’) has also given rise to much controversy. For postulating parasynthesis the basic criterion is whether the prefixed and suffixed forms can stand on their own as words or not. As to enriquecer this is not the case (*enrico, *riquecer), therefore it must be a parasynthetic formation. Among the critical issues related to parasynthesis are the output classes of this process and the question of whether the thematic vowel should be considered a derivational affix. The first problem can be illustrated by adjectives like desalmado ‘cruel’ and interescolar ‘(projects, events, etc.) realised between schools’. When desalmado first appeared, neither desalma nor almado existed, so the situation seems clear. Note however that there is a possible base verb (desalmar; in Modern Portuguese this verb exists due to backformation based upon the adjective), consequently desalmado could be taken to be a suffixal formation. Assuming hypothetical words as intermediate forms considerably reduces the amount of parasynthetic formations in a language (also verbs; cf. Gather 1999, who defends such an approach with respect to Spanish and French). As for interes-

2602

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

colar, parasynthesis may be postulated on semantic grounds: The usual bracketing [inter[[escol]ar]] does not do justice to the actual meaning of such adjectives, rather the prefix has scope over the base noun only; at first sight, parasynthesis seems to be a viable solution (for the problems of this analysis, cf. Rainer 1993: 103). The second problem manifests itself in words such as a-clar-a-r ‘to clarify’ or ensabo-a-r ‘to lather’. Considering them parasynthetics would imply that the thematic vowel is a derivational suffix. This leads to inconsistencies because in verbs like robotiz-a-r ‘to equip with robots’ the derivational affix is -iz-, not -a-. Consequently, in some cases the thematic vowel would serve the purpose of deriving a verb, in others not. Rather than by parasynthesis, the above verbs are to be explained by simultaneous prefixation and conversion. (For an alternative view, positing that a-, en- and es- are classchanging prefixes in the absence of a derivational suffix, cf. Pereira 2004.) Although derivation is the predominant way of extending the lexicon of Portuguese, composition (cf. Rio-Torto and Ribeiro 2009 for a good overall picture) is also well represented, primarily in the formation of new nouns and adjectives. As for the compounding of two nouns, Portuguese has both the prepositional type (BPg. café da manhã ‘breakfast; lit. coffee of the morning’; caminho de ferro ‘railway’) and juxtaposition (palavra-chave ‘key word’, sector-educação ‘education sector’) with the left-hand constituent as the head and a second noun restricting or specifying the meaning of the headnoun (unless the compound is copulative; for details see section 3.1). Traditionally, the language has favoured the former type, but the latter seems to be gaining ground. The existence of complex words with underlying syntactic structure naturally leads us to the issue of demarcation between syntax and morphology. Although words like the above-mentioned café da manhã often take the form of canonical XPs, they are in many cases completely frozen items, and syntactic operations must therefore have scope over the whole expression. Thus, by virtue of their being syntactic islands, extraction and/or pronominalisation of a constituent is prohibited (− *Que café quiseste? ‘Which coffee did you want?’ − *O da manhã. ‘The one of the morning.’), as is expansion of a nonhead element (café da [*boa] manhã ‘coffee of the good morning’). In verb-noun compounds morpho-syntactic operations must not affect parts of the expression (abre-latas → *abres-latas ‘open3.P.SG-PL-tins’). However, the distinction between free phrases and “syntactic words” is not always clear-cut, as is witnessed by an example like convento de monjas ‘convent’. Since this expression corresponds to a simplex in English and a compound in German (Nonnenkloster), one might hypothesise that it is a true syntactic word. Nevertheless, it allows for both extraction/pronominalisation of the head (− Que convento quiseste visitar? ‘Which cloister did you want to visit?’ − O de monjas lit. ‘The one of nuns’.) and expansion of the non-head constituent (convento de monjas carmelitas ‘convent of Carmelite nuns’). Different degrees of cohesion are observed with all types of lexicalised phrases and N+N compounds. In some cases, the complex word’s phonological shape is affected when cohesion has increased over time, for example aguardente ‘(hard) liquor’ ← água ‘water’ + ardente ‘burning’ (crasis of word-final and word-initial a, loss of stress on the first constituent). Compounds with full phonological amalgamation and morphological unity are sometimes referred to as “true” or “proper” compounds (in contrast to “improper” compounds). Finally, we must briefly address neoclassical word-formation. It is still an open issue whether complex words with Latin or Greek elements should be treated as compounds or derivatives. What speaks in favour of a compounding analysis is the fact that these

144. Portuguese

2603

elements are in many cases independent words in their source languages. According to this view, a word like gastropatia ‘(general term for) disease of the stomach’ qualifies as a compound formed upon gastro, meaning ‘stomach’ in Greek, and patia, which derives from a word referring to a state of illness or suffering in this language. On the other hand, constituents from Latin or Greek often behave like affixes and the set of words they are part of resemble large derivational paradigms. This is true not only of elements which are affixes or function words in the source languages (for example, Lat. bi- is an affix, Gr. antí a preposition) but holds also for lexical stems and words borrowed from these languages. Examples include gastro-, tele-, euro-, bio- or -logia, -sofia, -mania, -patia, etc., which are productive as word-initial or word-final constituents (for a good overview of the distribution and actual use of these affix-like elements, cf. Caetano 1996 and articles 93 and 95 on foreign word-formation in German and Italian respectively).

3. Composition 3.1. Nominal composition Regarding the formation of nouns, Portuguese displays several templates: 1. N+N, 2. N+Prep+N and N+Prep+V, 3. N+A/A+N, and 4. V+N. In light of their small number and reduced productivity, Num+N, Prep+N, V+Pron, V+Adv and V+V will be grouped together in a fifth category. N + N c o m p o u n d s fall into two basic groups since they can be determinative (camião-cisterna ‘tank (truck)’) or copulative (ator-encenador ‘actor-director’, bar-restaurante ‘bar-restaurant’). Determinative in itself stands for different semantic relations; in the literature on compounding in Romance languages, there is no consensus as to whether the relationships between the two constituents are as diverse as for example in German (cf. for Spanish Lang 1990: 84, who defends this view vs. Rainer 1993: 246, who proposes only 9 types of relationships plus a residual group which cannot be classified in accordance with the established criteria). While copulative compounds are recursive (autor-cantor-compositor ‘author-singercomposer’), determinative N+N compounds are rather not. With some exceptions, for example impressora laser cor alta qualidade ‘high quality colour laser printer’, truly recursive N+N compounds with the structure [[[A] B] C] appear only in special context types (product lists, advertisements, etc.; cf. Pöll 2007). Most determinative N+N compounds are left-headed, thus plural marking is wordinternal; this distinguishes them from copulative compounds which display plural endings on both constituents. There is a tendency towards double plural endings in determinative compounds whose second constituents have adjective-like properties (palavrachave ‘key word’ → palavras-chave(s)). A few N+N compounds, usually loanwords, are right-headed (espaço-nave < E. space ship, video-jogo < E. video game), hence the plural morpheme attaches to the right-hand constituent. N + P r e p + N , and to a lesser extent N + P r e p + V, are a very common pattern of forming new nouns in Portuguese. Most compounds of this type, which are always head-initial, make use of the preposition de (casa de banho ‘bathroom’, chave-de-fenda

2604

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

‘screwdriver’, máquina de lavar ‘washing machine’), sometimes the second noun comes with the definite article o or a (balança do poder ‘balance of power’, do ← de + o; teoria da relatividade ‘relativity theory’, da ← de + a). Other prepositions occur as well, for instance, sem ‘without’ (casal sem filhos ‘childless couple’), contra ‘against’ (seguro contra incêndio ‘fire insurance’), a ‘to’ (candidato a presidente ‘presidential candidate’) or em ‘in’ (algodão em rama ‘raw cotton’). Within the group of N + N / A + N c o m p o u n d s , the head-initial type is a productive pattern (maré baixa ‘low tide’, prato-feito ‘precooked meal’, diretor-geral ‘general manager’). It includes also formations with relational adjectives (produtos alimentícios ‘food products’, estação rodoviária ‘(long distance) bus station’, caixa-eletrónico ‘cash machine’). The right-headed type is not productive and comprises mostly calques from other languages (livre-arbítrio ‘free discretion’ < Fr. libre arbitre, curta-metragem ‘short film’ < Fr. court métrage, alta-fidelidade ‘high fidelity’ < E. high fidelity). As in other Romance languages, V + N c o m p o u n d s are a productive pattern in Portuguese. They denote activities/professions (guarda-meta ‘goal keeper; lit. keepsgoal’; limpa-chaminés ‘chimney sweep; lit. cleans-chimneys’; BP chupa-caldo ‘bootlicker; lit. sucks-soup’), instruments/tools (limpa-vidros ‘windscreen wiper; lit. cleans-windscreens’; saca-rolhas ‘cork screw; lit. pulls out-corks’; lava-louça ‘dish-washer; lit. washes-dishes’), and also animals or plants (beija-flor ‘hummingbird; lit. kisses-flower’; saca-estrepe ‘Brazilian lucerne; lit. pulls out-peak’). The first constituent is generally a two-syllable transitive verb belonging to the first conjugation (thematic vowel: -a-). In most cases, the nominal constituent is the verb’s direct object, which can be plural (saca-rolhas). In occasional examples, it must be considered to be an oblique complement (guarda-fogo ‘fire protection wall’; the artefact protects something a g a i n s t the fire). The exact nature of the verbal element has been subject to controversy. From a diachronic viewpoint, it is most likely an imperative form (cf. Lindner 2003: 125−129), but although the verb may correspond to an imperative in Modern Portuguese, this analysis is synchronically problematic since no such meaning is associated with this type of compounds. Standardly, the verbal element is held to represent either the infinitive devoid of its ending (i.e. root plus thematic vowel) or the 3rd person singular. In contrast to Spanish, where the situation is clear due to a verbal morphology with allomorphic variation affecting the root in some forms (Sp. cuentagotas ‘pipette; lit. counts-drops’ must contain an inflected form since the infinitive is contar), the issue is not completely settled for Portuguese. Sometimes the claim is made that the first constituent is not a verb, but a deverbal noun (cf., for example, Vilela 1994, building on Coseriu 1977, or more recently Scalise, Bisetto and Guevara 2005 with respect to Italian). This view must be rejected since Portuguese agent or instrument nouns are not derived by conversion (or zero-morpheme suffixation). V+N compounds lack a semantic head, so that gender is assigned by a default-rule. Unless the word refers to a female animal or human being, these compounds are generally masculine. Instances of pluralisation or diminutive formation like guarda-meta → guarda-metas or abre-latas → abre-latazinho ‘tin opener-DIM’ need not be taken as evidence for the existence of a syntactic or morphological head (pace Villalva 1992: 13), rather these words behave like a simplex (cf. Lee 1997: 8) with respect to inflection or further derivation, with the usual morphophonological or prosodic constraints applying (for instance no plural marking with paroxytone words ending in -s: lápis ‘pencil’ → *lapises/*lápises, thus abre-latas → *abre-latases).

144. Portuguese

2605

The pattern N u m + N is hardly productive, but there are common examples, like dois-pontos ‘colon’‚ três-estrelinhas ‘*** (typographical sign)’, BPg. três-quartos/EPg. três-assoalhadas ‘three-room flat’. As for P r e p + N f o r m a t i o n s , only sem ‘without’ is used, for example, in sem-número ‘huge quantity’ or BPg. sem-trabalho ‘unemployed person’. V + P r o n (faz-tudo ‘handyman; lit. makes-everything’), V + A d v (EPg. falabarato ‘phoney; lit. speaks-cheaply’) and V + V c o m p o u n d s (vaivém ‘comings and goings; lit. goes-comes’) are marginal. Whereas V+N, Num+N, Prep+N, V+V, V+Pron and V+Adv compounds are exocentric, formations belonging to the patterns N+N, N+Prep+N, N+Prep+V and N+A/A+N may be endocentric or exocentric constructions. The latter, for example, pontapé (N+N) ‘kick; lit. pikefoot’, pé-de-boi ‘person with old-fashioned, traditionalist views; lit. foot of ox’ (N+Prep+N) or BPg. pão-duro ‘miser; lit. bread-hard’ (N+A), form a heterogeneous class, since they do not pattern identically in terms of (morpho-)syntactic behaviour. While the plural of pontapé is pontapés, pé-de-boi adds the plural ending to the first constituent (pés-de-boi) and pão-duro marks plural on both elements (pães-duros). On the other hand, as an input to a derivation process, the latter example shows the same behaviour as other exocentric compounds, compare pão-duro → [[pão-dur]ismo] with guarda-roupa ‘wardrobe’ → [[guarda-roup]inha] ‘wardrobe-DIM’.

3.2. Adjectival composition Adjectives formed by means of compounding can be determinative or copulative. Examples of the first category are formations referring to shades of colour like amarelocanario ‘canary-yellow’ or verde-esmeralda ‘emerald’, where the right-hand nominal non-head constituents modify the meaning of the heads. These constructions appear also as nouns, and only in this case can they be pluralised (cf. Villalva 1992: 207: os verdesesmeralda ‘the emerald shades’ vs. lenços *verdes-esmeralda ‘emerald handkerchiefs’). This behaviour and the ban on intensification (branco-pérola ‘pearly white’ → *branquíssimo-pérola ‘pearly white-SUP’) suggests that we are dealing with N+N compounds which are appositions when functioning as NP-modifiers. Note however that this analysis leaves some problems unsolved. In particular, defending the N+N hypothesis entails that compounds like branco-sujo ‘dirty white’ represent the pattern N+A. But these formations do not behave accordingly: when used as modifiers of plural nouns they bear plural markings on the non-head constituent (lenços branco-sujos ‘dirty white handkerchiefs’). Among the determinative compounds, we find also the frequent formations with bem‘well-’ or mal- ‘ill-’ as the first constituent (bem-aventurado ‘blissful’, bem-intencionado ‘well-intentioned’, mal-humorado ‘moody’, malcuidado ‘neglected’, etc.), as well as a restricted number of compounds with sempre-, for example, (planta) sempreviva ‘evergreen (plant)’. Adjectival compounds consisting of two ethnic adjectives (cf. Sandmann 1989 [1986]: 140f.) may also be determinative: (cidadãos) americano-brasileiros ‘AmericanBrazilian (citizens)’, (ritmos) afro-brasileiros ‘Afro-Brazilian (rhythms)’. On the other hand, there are numerous copulative compounds following this pattern, for example, (empresas) brasileiro-paraguaias ‘Brazilian-Paraguayan (companies)’, where two simultaneously present characteristics are ascribed to the noun, or (relações) luso-brasileiras

2606

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

‘Luso-Brazilian (relations)’, with the typical reciprocal meaning of these formations. The latter example illustrates the fact that A+A compounds often use an abbreviated and/or Latinate form as their first constituents (africano → afro-, português/lusitano → luso-, austríaco → austro-, etc.). Ascribing two qualities to an entity is not limited to ethnicity adjectives, as is witnessed by examples like surdo-mudo ‘deaf and dumb’, económico-social ‘economic and social’ or burocrático-militar ‘burocratic and military’. With respect to pluralisation and gender agreement, there is no difference between determinative and copulative compounds: As a general rule only the second constituent is inflected (surdomudo deviates from this pattern: surda-muda ‘deaf.FEM and dumb.FEM’, surdos-mudos ‘deaf.MASC.PL and dumb.MASC.PL’).

4.

Derivation

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Denominal nouns Prefixation, being defined traditionally as a morphological process which is not classchanging, adds a prefix to a noun yielding a noun (see, however, section 4.1.2). Prefixed nouns usually refer to 1. the reduced size of the entity denoted by N (examples: minissaia ‘miniskirt’, microorganismo ‘microorganism’), 2. periods of time (ante-estreia ‘sneak preview’, pós-guerra ‘post-war (period)’, pré-história ‘prehistory’, entreato ‘interlude’), 3. the opposite of N or something that contradicts N (anti-herói ‘antihero’, desgosto ‘disgust, aversion’, contra-exemplo ‘counterexample’), 4. repetition of the action expressed by N (releitura ‘re-reading’), and 5. intensification (sobreabundância ‘superabundance’, hipertensão ‘hypertension, high blood pressure’). The prefixes used in the above examples are just a small sample, but all of them are productive in Modern Portuguese. As for suffixed nouns, the major output classes of category-maintaining suffixation are (cf. also Rio-Torto 1998a: 112f.): 1. collective nouns (folhagem ‘foliage’ ← folha ‘leaf’ + -agem, papelada ‘paperwork’ ← papel ‘paper’ + -ada), 2. agent nouns (ferreiro ‘blacksmith’ ← ferro ‘iron’ + -eiro, maquinista ‘engine driver’ ← máquina ‘engine’ + -ista), 3. function or status related to N (advocacia ‘function or status of a lawyer’ ← advogado ‘lawyer’ + -ia, bispado ‘episcopate’ ← bispo ‘bishop’ + -ado), 4. place nouns (where the entity denoted by N can be found) and recipients (galinheiro ‘hen house’ ← galinha ‘hen’ + -eiro, cinzeiro ‘ash tray’ ← cinza ‘ash’ + -eiro), livraria ‘book shop’ ← livro ‘book’ + -aria, 5. the contents of N (colherada ‘spoonful’ ← colher ‘spoon’ + -ada), 6. diseases (amigdalite ‘tonsillitis’ ← amígdala ‘tonsil’ + -ite), 7. products made from N (marmelada ‘quince jelly’ ← marmelo ‘quince’ + -ada), 8. objects or plants related to N (pereira ‘pear tree’ ← pera ‘pear’ + -eira, telheiro ‘porch, canopy’ ← telha ‘tile’ + -eiro). As can be seen, some suffixes have more than one function (especially -eiro, -ada, and -ado), and within one output class we find several suffixes. Again, all formatives involved in the above examples are productive. Other categories of denominal nouns formed by suffixation are diminutives and augmentatives.

144. Portuguese

2607

Tab. 144.1: Portuguese diminutive suffixes Suffix

Example/base noun

Suffix

Example/base noun

-inho, -a

casinha/casa

‘house’

-elho, -a

rapazelho/rapaz

‘boy’

-zinho, -a

cãozinho/cão

‘dog’

-ejo

lugarejo/lugar

‘place’

-ino, -a

maestrino/maestro

‘conductor, composer’

-ilho, -a

tropilha/tropa

‘troop’

-im

fortim/forte

‘fortress’

-ete

artiguete/artigo

‘article’

-acho, -a

riacho/rio

‘river’

-eto, -a

esboceto/esboço

‘sketch’

-icho, -a

barbicha/barba

‘beard’

-ito, -a

casita/casa

‘house’

-ucho, -a

papelucho/papel

‘paper’

-zito, -a

jardinzito/jardim

‘garden’

-ebre

casebre/casa

‘house’

-ote, -a

peixote/peixe

‘fish’

-eco, -a

livreco/livro

‘book’

-isco, -a

chuvisco/chuva

‘rain’

-ico, -a

burrico/burro

‘donkey’

-usco, -a

velhusco/velho

‘old (person)’

-ela

ruela/rua

‘street’

-ola

fazendola/fazenda ‘farm’

Portuguese has a large inventory of d i m i n u t i v e suffixes (cf. Cunha and Cintra 1984: 90), displayed in Table 144.1. Diminutive constructions often denote something which is (subjectively) small. In addition to this meaning − which is still considered to be basic by many scholars − they usually convey special connotations and are often interpreted as referring to something cute or pleasant (casita, cãozinho, gatinho ‘cat-DIM’). Nevertheless, some suffixes are associated with pejorative meanings (examples: maestrino ‘young, unexperienced composer whose music is easy to listen to’, papelucho ‘scrap of paper’, livreco ‘small or poor book’), and even -inho/-zinho are sometimes interpreted in this way, as in the following example (from Sandmann 1989 [1986]: 40): O Botafogo […] satisfeito com seu golzinho. ‘The Botafogo team […] satisfied with its lousy goal.’ Actually, the meaning of productive evaluative suffixes may be highly context-sensitive. Many diminutive constructions are lexicalised and have taken a special meaning, such as barbicha ‘small beard’ and more specifically ‘beard of a male goat’, lugarejo ‘small place’, but also ‘hamlet’, caixinha ‘money box’ (and not ‘small cash desk’) or BPg. escolinha, which refers to special types of training institutions (escolinha de cães ‘dog obedience school’, escolinha de natação ‘swim school’). With the exception of -ete, which appears in some recent formations (BPg. sofanete ‘sofa’ ← sofá + -n- + -ete ‘sofa bed’, where the linking morpheme -n- is due to analogy with words like colchonete ‘small portable mattress’ or cotonete ‘cotton bud’, cartazete ‘small poster, generally used inside buildings or means of transport’ ← cartaz ‘poster’ + -ete, cf. Sandmann 1989 [1986]: 38), the only productive diminutive suffixes nowadays are -inho and -zinho. There has been prolific discussion about the distribution of these two suffixes and the very question of whether they are actually two suffixes or two allomorphic variants of one suffix (cf. Bisol 2010 for an overview of the relevant positions in the literature).

2608

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

As a general rule, -zinho is used with bases ending in a stressed vowel (pázinha ← pá ‘shovel’, *painha; mãezinha ← mãe ‘mother’) or a consonant: lençolzinho ← lençol ‘handkerchief’ (cf. Basilio 2004: 71−72). Plurisyllabic bases may appear with -zinho or -inho (lámpadazinha ← lámpada ‘lamp’ vs. vestidinho ← vestido ‘dress’). In all other cases, there is a tendency towards the use of -inho. However, sometimes both forms are acceptable, for example mulherinha/mulherzinha ← mulher ‘woman’. The fundamental difference between -inho and -zinho is that the latter, but not the former, selects inflected forms as its base, and that plural and gender is marked twice, word-internally and on the suffix: cãozinho ‘dog.SG.DIM’ ← cão ‘dog’, but cãezinhos ‘dog.PL.DIM.PL.’, and indiozinho ‘Indian.MASC.DIM’ ← índio ‘Indian.MASC’ but indiazinha ‘Indian.FEM.DIM’ ← índia ‘Indian.FEM’. Moreover, adding -zinho does not affect the phonological integrity of the base. A standard example for this is the opposition between golinho und golozinho, both derived from golo ‘goal’ ['golu]: in golinho stress displacement results in closing of the first ([gu'liɲu]), whereas in golozinho the vowel quality of the base word is preserved ([golu'ziɲu]). These facts have lead some scholars to postulate that formations with -zinho are not derivatives, but compounds. However, this analysis is difficult to maintain for two reasons. First, Portuguese lacks native rightheaded compounds, and second, -zinho is anything but an autonomous element in the language. The most important a u g m e n t a t i v e suffixes of Portuguese are listed in Table 144.2 (cf. Cunha and Cintra 1984: 90). Apart from expressing the idea of ‘big size’, augmentative constructions often convey negative connotations, such as excess, ugliness, bad quality, etc. So, a corpanzil is a ‘big and ugly body’, and bocarra evokes the idea of a big, wide-opened and ugly mouth. Many formations are lexicalised with a negative meaning (asneirão ‘big donkey; extremely stupid person’) and the basic size-related augmentative idea may be absent (medicastro ‘quack doctor’). But there are also positive meanings (cf. Basilio 2004: 68), and positive and negative readings may develop independently in the two major dialects of Portuguese. For instance, whereas EPg. mulherão means ‘big and fat woman’ (with

Tab. 144.2: Portuguese augmentative suffixes Suffix

Example/base noun

Suffix

Example/base noun

-ão

paredão/parede

‘wall’

-anzil

corpanzil/corpo

‘body’

-alhão

vagalhão/vaga

‘wave’

-aréu

fogaréu/fogo

‘fire’

-arrão

gatarrão/gato

‘cat’

-arra

bocarra/boca

‘mouth’

-zarrão

homenzarrão/homem ‘man’

-orra

cabeçorra/cabeça

‘head’

-eirão

asneirão/asno

‘donkey’

-astro

medicastro/médico

‘doctor’

-aço

animalaço/animal

‘animal’

-az

lobaz/lobo

‘wolf’

-aça

barbaça/barba

‘beard’

-alhaz

facalhaz/faca

‘knife’

-ázio

copázio/copa

‘glass (recipient)’

-arraz

pratarraz/prato

‘plate, meal’

-uça

dentuça/dente

‘tooth’

144. Portuguese

2609

the expected pejorative nuance), the same word has a positive meaning in colloquial Brazilian Portuguese and refers to a particularly pretty and attractive female human being. In contrast to diminutive suffixes like -inho or -ito, augmentatives are generally not gender-transparent: parede f. ‘wall’ → paredão m. ‘big wall’, copa f. ‘glass’ → copázio m. ‘big glass’, faca f. ‘knife’→ facalhão m. ‘big knife’, etc.

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Nouns derived from adjectives generally refer to qualities or states. In Portuguese the following suffixes for the construction of quality nouns are used (cf. Sandmann 1989 [1986]: 49−50; Vilela 1994: 179−180): -ência (coerência ‘coherence’ ← coerente), -ância (elegância ‘elegance’ ← elegante), -eza (fineza ‘delicacy’ ← fino), -ez (palidez ‘paleness’ ← pálido), -ice/-iça/-ície/-ícia (these suffixes share the same etymology, with -ice being the less learned form; velhice ‘old age’ ← velho, justiça ‘justice’ ← justo, imundície ‘filthiness’ ← imundo), -ura (finura ‘slyness‘ ← fino), -(i)dade/-(e)dade (crueldade ‘cruelness’ ← cruel, profundidade ‘deepness’ ← profundo, seriedade ‘seriousness’ ← sério), -(i)dão (from the viewpoint of etymology the suffix is -dão < Lat. -tudine, but since the -i- appears systematically, the citation form is usually -idão; exatidão ‘exactness’ ← exato), -or (amargor ‘bitterness’ ← amargo), -tude (attaches to Latinate bases only; plenitude ‘fullness’ ← pleno). Although Sandmann (1989 [1986]) listed some occurrences of new words formed with -eza and -ice, -(i)dade is the only productive suffix for quality nouns in Modern Portuguese. Pilla (2002: 72) notes some recent formations: criticidade ‘critical faculty’ ← crítico ‘critical’, descartabilidade ‘capability of rejecting or excluding something or someone’ ← descartável ‘excludable, declinable’, sacralidade ‘sacredness’ ← sacral ‘sacred’. With deverbal adjectives ending in -vel, this suffix selects the Latinate allomorph, thus amável → amabilidade ‘niceness’, possível → possibilidade ‘possibility’, responsável → responsabilidade ‘responsibility’, etc. Nouns derived by means of the aforementioned suffixes sometimes undergo semantic extensions (cf. Vilela 1994: 180) and may appear also as action nouns, for instance, amabilidade ‘niceness’ and ‘act of courtesy, favour’, impertinência ‘impertinence’ and ‘impertinent behaviour or action’. The fact that a quality can be incarnated by a person leads to readings with the noun referring to a human being: inteligência ‘intelligent person’, bondade ‘good person’, etc. Collective readings occur as well: juventude ‘young age’ and ‘the young’, nobreza ‘nobleness’ and ‘the nobles’.

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns Deverbal nouns embrace a wide range of semantic classes: action, agent, instrument, result, and place. Portuguese a c t i o n n o u n s are derived by the following suffixes (cf. Rio-Torto 1998a: 119−120; Vilela 1994: 177−178): -agem (combines with verbs of the 1st conjugation; BPg. postagem ‘dispatch’ ← postar, reciclagem ‘recycling’ ← reciclar, lavagem ‘washing’ ← lavar), -ção (realização ‘realisation’ ← realizar, atualização ‘ac-

2610

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

tualisation’ ← atualizar, nomeação ‘nomination’ ← nomear; -xão and -são are allomorphs, but the derivatives lack a synchronic link with the respective verbs: comprensão ‘comprehension’ / compreender, reflexão ‘reflection’ / refletir), -ão (tropeção ‘the act of stumbling’ ← tropeçar), -mento (impedimento ‘hindrance’ ← impedir, nascimento ‘birth’ ← nascer, comportamento ‘behaviour’ ← comportar(-se)), -ário (comentário ‘comment’ ← comentar), -ura (assinatura ‘signature’ ← assinar; nouns in -(t)ura are learned or semi-learned words, thus lacking a real derivational link with a verb in Modern Portuguese: leitura ‘act of reading’ < Lat. lectura / leer ‘to read’, abertura ‘opening’ < Lat. apertura / abrir ‘to open’, etc.), -da (chegada ‘arrival’ ← chegar, saída ‘leaving’ ← saír, acolhida ‘reception’ ← acolher; nouns in -da represent the feminine form of nominalised perfect participles); -ância/-ência/-ança/-ença (tolerância ‘tolerance’ ← tolerar, aderência ‘the act of becoming a member’ ← aderir, vingança ‘revenge’ ← vingar(-se), descrença ‘disbelief’ ← descrer; the two former are the more Latinate allomorphs), -aria (gritaria ‘shouting’ ← gritar), -ato/-ado (atentado ‘attack, assassination’ ← atentar, assassinato ‘murder’ ← assassinar). Among these suffixes, only the first four are really productive in Modern Portuguese, with -ção holding by far the first rank. Nevertheless, some recent formations with -da are also documented (in colloquial speech) and appear in light-verb constructions (dar uma analisada ‘to make a (brief) examination’ ← analisar, dar uma estudada ‘to superficially study something’ ← estudar; cf. Sandmann 1989 [1986]: 51; Pilla 2002: 42). It is noteworthy that -ção shows a marked preference for verbs derived by -iz- (realização ‘realisation’ ← realizar, atualização ‘actualisation’ ← atualizar, BPg. favelização ‘the fact or process of becoming a slum’ ← favelizar). Suffixes used for the derivation of action nouns appear also in nouns expressing states or results, i.e. they refer to the outcome of the action denoted by the base verb, thus, composição ‘assembly, combination’, but also ‘piece of music’ ← compor, publicação ‘the act of publishing’ and ‘published work’ ← publicar, enfraquecimento ‘weakening’ and ‘weakness’ ← enfraquecer, etc. For the derivation of d e v e r b a l a g e n t n o u n s Portuguese makes use of -dor(a)/ -tor(a) or (-triz)/-sor(a) (jogador ‘player’ ← jogar, tradutor ‘translator’ ← traduzir, impressor ‘printer (person)’ ← imprimir; with the exception of -dor, these forms are learned suffixes requiring a Latinate base), -ante/-ente/-inte (estudante ‘student’ ← estudar, combatente ‘fighter’ ← combater, ouvinte ‘listener’ ← ouvir), -douro (bebedouro ‘drinker’ ← beber). Only -dor(a) is still productive. Some of the suffixes used for the formation of agent nouns appear also in i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s (aspirador ‘vacuum cleaner’ ← aspirar, elevador ‘lift’ ← elevar; nutriente ‘nourishing substance’ ← nutrir, etc.). There may be a specialisation of the feminine form for the instrument noun (cf. Vilela 1994: 179): impressora ‘printer (appliance)’ ← imprimir, calculadora ‘(pocket) calculator’ ← calcular or separadora ‘sorting machine’ ← separar. P l a c e n o u n s can also be formed by suffixes used for the derivation of action and agent nouns, for example, corredor ‘hallway’ ← correr ‘to run’, miradouro ‘lookout’, mirante ‘gazebo’ ← mirar ‘to look’. Another frequent but unproductive suffix for place nouns is -tório (escritório ‘office’ ← escrever, dormitório ‘dormitory, BPg. sleeping room’ ← dormir).

144. Portuguese

2611

4.2. Adjectival derivation 4.2.1. Denominal adjectives Prefixed denominal adjectives are formations like (depressão) [pós-[partoN]]A ‘postpartum (depression)’ or (medidas) [anti-[greveN]]A ‘anti-strike (mesures)’. Apart from pós- ‘after’ and anti- ‘against’ the common prefixes deriving these adjectives are contra‘against’ and pré- ‘before’. In order to maintain the assumption that prefixation is not category-changing, other analyses have been proposed in the literature on Romance word-formation, e.g., parasynthesis with zero suffixation or conversion of a noun. The problem with the first of these alternative explanations is that postulating a zero suffix is an ad-hoc solution, the second one is weakened by the fact that not all of these adjectives can be nouns ([pós-[partoN]]A / [pós-[partoN]]N vs. [anti-[greveN]]A / *[anti[greveN]]N). Denominal adjectives derived by suffixation are either qualifying or relational. While qualifying adjectives restrict the reference of a noun, the function of relational adjectives is to classify a noun with respect to the meaning of the “embedded” noun. The most common Portuguese suffixes for the construction of relational adjectives are -al (ambiental ‘environmental’ ← ambiente), -ar (familiar ‘family-’ ← família), -ário (parlamentário ‘parlamentary’ ← parlamento), ˈ-eo (ósseo ‘osseous’ ← osso), -esco (romanesco ‘romanesque’ ← romance), -estre (campestre ‘rural’ ← campo), -(i)ano (freudiano ‘Freudian’ ← Freud), ˈ-ico (autárquico ‘autarchic’ ← autarquia), -ino (cristalino ‘crystalline’ ← cristal), -ista (ecologista ‘ecological’ ← ecologia); -(t)ivo (instintivo ‘instinctive’ ← instinto), with -al, -ar, ˈ-eo, -esco, -ano, ˈ-ico and -ista being nowadays the most productive ones (cf. Vilela 1994: 192, who mentions also -estre). On the other side of the scale, we have suffixes like -il (febril ‘febrile’ ← febre), -onho (enfadonho ‘boring’ ← enfado) or -udo (carrancudo ‘having a bad mood’ ← carranco), which have completely lost their productivity. For gentilic adjectives, a sub-class of relational adjectives, Portuguese has the following suffixes: -ão (beirão ← Beira [central region of Portugal]), -(i)ano (cubano ← Cuba, tunisiano ← Tunísia), -eiro (brasileiro ← Brasil), -enho (extremenho ← Extremadura), -ense (nicaragüense ← Nicaragua), -ês (dinamarquês ← Dinamarca), -ino (tunisino ← Tunis), -o (líbio ← Líbia), -ita (moscovita ← Móscovo/Moscovia), -ota (cipriota ← Chipre), -ol (espanhol ← Espanha). In contrast to Spanish (and Catalan), Portuguese did not borrow the suffix -í from Arabic, hence differences like Pg. marroquino vs. Sp. marroquí. Relational adjectives are often turned into qualifying adjectives; for instance, febril can mean ‘passionate’, dantesco receives the meaning ‘horrible’ and prosaico refers to something trivial. As a consequence, many of the above suffixes might also appear in a list of suffixes deriving qualifying adjectives. For this latter purpose, the following ones are also common (among others): -ado (barbado ‘bearded’ ← barba), -(l)ento (corpulento ‘stout’ ← corpo ‘body’), -oso (venenoso ‘toxic’ ← veneno ‘poison’).

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Deadjectival adjectives belong to several subclasses, amongst them formations with intensive or evaluative suffixes. As intensifying prefixes we find, for example, arqui-

2612

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

(arquicélebre ← célebre ‘famous’), extra- (extrafino ← fino ‘fine’), hiper- (hipersensível ← sensível ‘sensitive’), mega- (megainteressante), sobre- (sobre-horrendo ← horrendo ‘terrible’), super- (BPg. superdotado ← dotado ‘talented’) or ultra- (ultracompetente ← competente ‘proficient’). On the other hand, there are prefixes that express low intensity or insufficiency (hipo-: hipocalórico ‘low in calories’; sub-: subcilíndrico ‘almost cilindrical’, semi-: semi-acabado ‘half-finished’). Among the intensifying suffixes, -íssimo is highly productive: detalhadíssimo ← detalhado ‘detailed’, aplaudidíssimo ← aplaudido ‘acclaimed’, visibilíssimo ← visível ‘visible’ (examples from Sandmann 1989 [1986]: 64). In Portuguese, evaluatives suffixes (cf. section 4.1.1) also combine with adjectives. Again, the most productive ones are -inho/-zinho and -ão (examples: atrasadinho ‘slightly backward’ ← atrasado, covardão ‘excessively coward’ ← covarde). Note that -inho may express not attenuation, but the contrary, as is the case in tortinho ← torto ‘crooked’ (for example: estante tortinha ‘completely crooked bookshelf’). Adjectival bases combine with many prefixes expressing a wide range of semantic modifications (privative, oppositive, locative, temporal, etc.), as in the following examples: apolítico ‘unpolitic’ ← político, antiaéreo ‘anti-air-’ ← aéreo ‘air-’, contraprodutivo ‘counterproductive’ ← produtivo, desigual ‘unequal’ ← igual, inflexível ‘inflexible’ ← flexível ({in-}, pronounced [ĩ], has the graphic variants and , both representing the allomorph [i]), entrefino ‘neither small nor large’ ← fino ‘small’, intercultural ‘intercultural’ ← cultural, intramuscular ‘intramuscular’ ← muscular, pretónico ‘pretonic’ ← tónico, pós-revolucionário ‘postrevolutionary’ ← revolucionário, transalpino ‘transalpine’ ← alpino.

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal adjectives with an active meaning (cf. Vilela 1994: 189−190; Basilio 2004: 57−59) are formed with -ante/-ente/-inte (irritante ‘irritating’ ← irritar, seguinte ‘following’ ← seguir, deprimente ‘depressing’ ← deprimir, absorvente ‘absorbant’ ← absorver), -dor (gastador ‘wasteful’ ← gastar ‘to spend’, conservador ‘conservative; conserving’ ← conservar, vencedor ‘victorious’ ← vencer), -(t)ivo (repetitivo ‘repeating’ ← repetir, interrogativo ‘questioning’ ← interrogar, adotivo ‘adopting’ ← adotar), and -(t)ório (reivindicatório ‘requiring’ ← reivindicar, decisório ‘deciding’ ← decidir). In regard to passive meanings the suffix -vel (lavável ‘washable’ ← lavar, traduzível ‘translatable’ ← traduzir, entendível ‘audible’ ← entender) is common and productive. Some adjectives ending in -vel do not have a synchronic relation to a verb, such as potável ‘potable’, audível ‘audible’ or solúvel ‘soluble’, or have no base, like interminável ‘endless’ (*interminar), incansável ‘inexhaustible’ (*incansar), ministeriável ‘suitable for being nominated minister’ or presidenciável ‘suitable for being elected president’. For the latter two adjectives, potential base verbs are attested, but they lack the relevant meaning and argument structure, since ministeriar and presidenciar are unergatives and refer to the action of assuming the functions of a minister or a chair person/president; in case these verbs are used transitively, they do not select an animate complement. The suffix -ão combines sometimes with verbs, giving rise to adjectives with a pejorative meaning, for example, responder ‘to answer’ → respondão ‘insolent’, resmungar ‘to mutter‘→ resmungão ‘grouchy’ or chorar ‘to cry’ → chorão ‘who cries frequently’.

144. Portuguese

2613

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Denominal verbs The following suffixes are commonly used for the derivation of denominal verbs in Portuguese: -e- (golpear ‘to hit’ ← golpe, serpentear ‘to meander’ ← serpente ‘snake’, presentear ‘to give a present’), -ec- (favorecer ‘to favour’ ← favor), -ej- (BPg. planejar ‘to plan’ ← plano), -esc- (florescer ‘to prosper’ ← flor ‘flower’), -ific- (frutificar ‘to bear fruit, to prosper’ ← fruto), -iz- (satelizar ‘to turn into a (political, economic) satelite’ ← satélite, robotizar ‘to equip with robots’ ← robô). Amongst them -iz- is the most productive. Parasynthesis is a further productive means of forming new verbs. The following patterns are attested (cf. Villalva 2003: 955): a-N-e- (assenhorear-se ‘to take possession of’ ← senhor ‘master’), a-N-ec- (anoitecer ‘to dawn (in the evening)’ ← noite ‘night’), a-N-ej- (apredrejar ‘to throw stones at sb.’ ← pedra), a-N-iz- (atemorizar ‘to frighten’ ← temor ‘fear’), en-N-ec- (enraivecer ‘to annoy’ ← raiva ‘anger’), en-N-iz- (encolerizar ‘to exasperate’ ← cólera ‘fury’), des-N-e- (descantear ‘to smoothen the edges’ ← canto ‘edge’), en-N-e- (enlamear ‘to soil’ ← lama ‘mud’), en-N-ej- (encarvoejar ‘to transform into coal’ ← carvão ‘coal’), des-N-ej- (descasquejar ‘to remove coarse dirt’ ← casca ‘bark, crust’), des-N-iz- (desdolarizar ‘to dedollarise’ ← dólar), es-N-e (esfaquear ‘to aggress or hurt with a knife’ ← faca ‘knife’), es-N-ec- (espavorecer ‘to frighten’ ← pavor ‘fright’), es-N-ej- (esbracejar ‘to wave arms about’ ← braço ‘arm’), esN-iz- (espavorizar ‘to frighten’ ← pavor ‘fright’). The simultaneous application of prefixation and conversion is also frequent, for example: a-N- (ajoelhar ‘to kneel down’ ← joelho), des-N- (descafeinar ‘to decaffeinate’ ← cafeína), en-N- (enterrar ‘to bury’ ← terra ‘earth’), es-N- (esburacar ‘to make a hole’ ← buraco), ex-N- (expatriar ‘to expatriate’ ← pátria ‘home country’), re-N- (repatriar ‘to repatriate’ ← pátria).

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Most suffixes used for denominal verbs are also used for the derivation of deadjectival verbs: -e- (BPg. verdear ‘to become green (again)’ ← verde), -ec- (obscurecer ‘to grow dark, obscure’ ← obscuro), -ej- (verdejar ‘to become green (again)’ ← verde), -ific(solidificar ‘to solidify’ ← sólido), -iz- (atualizar ‘to actualise’ ← atual). The specific patterns of parasynthetic deadjectival verb formation are (cf. Villalva 2003: 955): a-A-e- (aformosear ‘to embellish’ ← formoso ‘beautiful’), a-A-ec- (amadurecer ‘to ripen’ ← maduro), a-A-ej- (anegrejar ‘to turn black’ ← negro ‘black’), en-Ae- (engalhardear ‘to make elegant, graceful’ ← galhardo ‘spruce, elegant’), en-A-ec (entristecer ‘to worry’ ← triste), en-A-ej- (enverdejar ‘to turn green, rejuvenate’ ← verde ‘green’), es-A-e- (esverdear ‘to turn green’ ← verde), es-A-ec- (esclarecer ‘to clarify’ ← claro), es-A-ej- (esbravejar ‘to get angry’ ← bravo ‘wild’), re-A-e- (relouquear ‘to go crazy’ ← louco ‘mad’); prefixation and conversion occur with a-A- (aclarar ‘to clarify’ ← claro), des-A- (desbravar ‘to tame, overcome’ ← bravo), en-A- (encurtar ‘to shorten’ ← curto ‘short’), es-A- (esfriar ‘to get cold, insensitive’ ← frio) and re-A- (requentar ‘to warm over’ ← quente ‘warm’).

2614

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs Verbs combine with a wide range of prefixes in Portuguese; according to Vilela (1994: 195) the most important ones are a- (abaixar ‘to go down, lose height’ ← baixar), ante(antepor ‘to put in front’ ← pôr), co- (coexistir ‘to coexist’ ← existir), contra- (contraatacar ‘to counterattack’ ← atacar), des- (desaconselhar ‘to advise against sth.’ ← aconselhar), entre- (entre-ajudar ‘to help one another’ ← ajudar), inter- (interagir ‘to interact’ ← agir), pos- (pospor ‘to postpone’ ← pôr), pre- (predeterminar ‘to predetermine’ ← determinar), re- (recomeçar ‘to begin again, start over’ ← começar), sub(subestimar ‘to underestimate’ ← estimar), sobre- (sobrestimar ‘to overestimate’ ← estimar), super- (superalimentar ‘to overnourish’ ← alimentar). Deverbal verbs can also be formed by adding a suffix that has a diminutive/hypocoristic (or pejorative) function or modifies the lexical aspect/aktionsart of the base verb. This group includes verbs formed with -ic- (BPg. bebericar ‘to sip, tipple’ ← beber), -ilh- (fervilhar ‘to simmer’ ← ferver ‘to boil’), -inh- (escrevinhar ‘to write like a scribbler’ ← escrever ‘to write’) or -it- (saltitar ‘to walk with quick light steps’ ← saltar ‘to jump’).

4.4. Adverbial derivation Portuguese adverbs are formed by adding -mente to an adjective (for restrictions on the formation of -mente adverbs, cf. Basilio 1998). Like its equivalents in other Romance languages, Pg. -mente selects the feminine form of its base, thus bondoso → bondosamente ‘kindly’, claro → claramente ‘clearly’, animado → animadamente ‘vividly’. The fact that some adjectives had only one form for both genders in earlier periods of the language is what explains the apparent exceptions from the rule, consider português → portuguesmente ‘in a Portuguese way’, cortês → cortesmente ‘politely’ or burguês → burguesmente ‘in a bourgeois manner’. (With the exception of cortês, these adjectives have now regular feminine forms ending in -esa.) Adverbs in -mente exhibit two special properties which make them untypical derivatives: First, the base adjective bears (secondary) stress, therefore its tonic vowel does not undergo vowel closing (forçoso [furˈsozu] ‘necessary’ → forçosamente [furˌsozɐˈmɛ˜tə] / *[fursuzɐˈmɛ˜tə] ‘necessarily’; EPg. pronunciation); second, when these adverbs are coordinated, -mente is elided in the first conjunct (leal-0̸ e sinceramente ‘honestly and sincerely’). These phenomena can be accounted for in different ways, amongst them a compounding analysis. One of the most promising approaches is certainly Torner’s idea (2005) − developed for Spanish, but easily transposable to Portuguese − that -mente is a “phrasal affix” operating at the syntactic level. Thus, it attaches not to a word, but to a phrase. Accordingly, the bracketing for leal e sinceramente is [[[leal e sincera]AdjP] mente]AdvP.

5. Conversion 5.1. Nominal conversion Nominal conversion occurs usually with adjectives or verbs, like in circular ‘circular’ → circular ‘circular letter’, difícil ‘difficult’ → (o) difícil ‘(the) difficult point, etc., of

144. Portuguese

2615

sth., challenge; difficult person’, capital ‘very important’ → capital ‘capital, fund’. In contrast to Spanish, Portuguese has no neuter article, thus o difícil can refer to a difficult person or to something difficult (Sp. el difícil [+hum] vs. lo difícil [−hum]). As for verbs we have, for example, jantar ‘to have dinner’ → jantar ‘dinner’, prazer ‘to please’ → prazer ‘pleasure’ or dever ‘must’ → dever ‘duty’. Traditionally, nouns such as alcance ‘achievement, scope’ ← alcançar ‘to reach’, ataque ‘attack’ ← atacar ‘to attack’, busca ‘search’ ← buscar ‘to look for’, erro ‘error’ ← errar ‘to err, make a mistake’, enlace ‘link’ ← enlaçar ‘to link’ or resgate ‘ransom, rescue’ ← resgatar ‘to ransom, save’, to mention but a few, have been described as being the result of backformation (cf. section 6), but may well be analysed as conversions. Although a morpheme (similar in its function to the thematic vowel in verbal conversion) is attached to the root, no overt derivation process is involved. Conversion is also attested with adverbs and prepositions, for instance, (o) então ‘(the) former times’ ← então ‘at that moment’, (o) aqui ‘(the) here’ ← aqui ‘here’, (os) contras ‘(the) cons’ ← contra ‘against’, etc.

5.2. Adjectival conversion Adjectives created by conversion include então ‘former’ ← então ‘at that moment’ (o então primeiro ministro ‘the former Prime-minister’), homem ‘having the qualities of a real man’ ← homem ‘man’ (ele é muito homem ‘he is a real man’), burro ‘stupid’ ← burro ‘donkey’ (é impossível ser tão burro ‘it’s impossible to be so stupid’) as well as colour terms (laranja ‘orange (colour)’ ← laranja ‘orange (fruit)’, castanho ‘chestnut brown’ ← castanho ‘chestnut’, etc.).

5.3. Verbal conversion Besides suffixation with -iz-, conversion of nouns and − to a lesser extent − adjectives is highly productive in the formation of verbs in Portuguese. New verbs originating from a conversion process belong to the first conjugation (thematic vowel: -a-). The following examples from Basilio (2004: 36) and Pilla (2002: 83) are only a small sample of verbs which were formed in the 20th century: aperitivar ‘to drink an aperitif’ ← aperitivo ‘aperitif’, elencar ‘to include in a list of subjects to be treated’ ← elenco ‘list’, monitorar ‘to monitor’ ← monitor, positivar ‘to prove true, become concrete’ ← positivo ‘positive’, inocentar ‘to declare sb. innocent’ ← inocente ‘innocent’.

5.4. Adverbial conversion Conversion is a relatively frequent means of forming adverbs (cf. Vilela 1994: 196), as in (pagar) caro ‘(to pay) dearly’ ← caro ‘expensive’, (vender) barato ‘(to sell) cheaply’ ← barato ‘cheap’, (vestir) jovem ‘(to dress) young’ ← jovem ‘young’, (cozinhar) saudável ‘(to cook) healthily’ ← saudável ‘healthy’, (correr) rápido ‘(to run) quickly’ ←

2616

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

rápido ‘quick’, (comprar) português ‘(to buy) Portuguese (products)’, falar (baixo) ‘(to speak) softly’, etc.

6. Backformation Backformations are generally defined as words created on the basis of an earlier more complex form, for example, the verbs desalmar ‘to dehumanise’ ← desalmado ‘heartless’, teledetetar ← teledeteção ‘remote detection’ or micromanipular ← micromanipulação ‘micromanipulation’. In many cases, though, the new word is as complex as the original one, such as videoconferenciar ‘to hold a video conference’ ← videoconferência ‘video conference’, microbiólogo ‘microbiologist’ ← microbiologia ‘microbiology’ or interlocutar(-se) ‘to talk, negotiate with sb.’ ← interlocutor ‘dialogue partner’. The arguments for postulating backformation are often of a diachronic kind and/or are based on the internal structure of the words in question: desalmar and videoconferenciar are more recent than desalmado and videoconferência, and items such as microbiólogo or interlocutar-(se) cannot be generated by regular word-formation rules of the language (microrefers to the small size of the base noun, cf. section 4.1.1; if interlocutar is thought of as a prefixed verb, it has no base).

7. Reduplication Reduplication is scarcely productive in Modern Portuguese (cf. Alves 2004: 70). Contrary to common belief, words formed by reduplication do not necessarily pertain only to child speech, but are used, sometimes with ironic intentions, in adult speech as well. Well-known examples include titia ‘aunty’ ← tia ‘aunt’, mimir ‘to sleep’ ← dormir ‘to sleep’, BPg. bumbum ‘buttocks’ ← bunda ‘behinds’, EPg. papa/BPg. papai ‘dad’ ← pãe ‘father’, EPg. chupa-chupa ‘lollipop’ ← chupa ‘to suck.3P.SG.’, EPg. dói-dói/BPg. dodói ‘sick’ ← dói ‘to hurt.3P.SG’.

8. Blending Blends are particularly frequent in journalistic texts and more so in Brazilian Portuguese than in the European dialect. The following examples were all taken from Brazilian media texts (some of them are found in Portugal as well): crionça ‘unruly child’ ← criança ‘child’ + onça ‘panther’, esclitóris ‘office where only women work’ ← escritório ‘office’ + clitóris ‘clitoris’, mautorista ‘bad driver’ ← mau ‘bad’ + motorista ‘driver’, paitrocínio ‘excessive and morally questionable support by one’s father’ ← patrocínio ‘patronage’ + pai ‘father’, chafé ‘weak coffee (looking like tea)’ ← café ‘coffee’ + chá ‘tea’. Blending occurs also with bound or neoclassical elements, such as in the following names of pharmaceutical products sold in Brazil: Cicatricure (a creme for the treatment of scars; ← cicatriz ‘scar’ + curar ‘to cure’, with a possible influence from E. cure or

144. Portuguese

2617

the imperative form of curar), Gastroflat (a remedy against flatulence; ← gastro- ‘stomach’ + flatulência ‘flatulence’), Salsep (a disinfecting nasal spray containing sodium chloride; ← sal ‘salt’ + séptico ‘septic’). Traditionally, blends have been thought of as the result of ruleless lexical creativity, nevertheless current research endeavours to uncover rules and/or constraints (cf., for instance, Gonçalves and Almeida 2004, and Gonçalves 2006 who proposes an optimalitytheoretic approach).

9. Clipping In Portuguese, as in other languages, clippings are common but not exclusive to informal speech. The removed material comes mostly from the end of the word, for example foto ← fotografia ‘photography, picture’ or cine ← cinema ‘cinema, movie theatre’. Deleting both word initial and word final elements is not excluded (níver ← aniversário ‘birthday’). Words formed by clipping do usually not preserve the original stress of their base word, most of them are paroxytones (cerva ← cerveja ‘beer’, EPg. depre ‘depressed’ ← deprimido, BPg. vestiba ← vestibular ‘university entrance exam’, BPg. portuga ‘Portuguese (pejorative)’ ← português ‘Portuguese’, estranja ← estrangeiro ‘foreigner; foreign country’), some are oxytones (for example, facú ← faculdade ‘university’, BPg. deprê ← deprimido ‘depressed’). The aforementioned examples show that there is a special type of back-clipping which consists in adding a vocalic element (-e/-ê or -a). Apart from clipping there is another important shortening process: the formation of acronyms. Ronneberger-Sibold (2008: 211) distinguishes three basic types: 1. spelling acronyms (the first letters of the constituents are pronounced: PSD [peɛsəde] ← Partido Social-Democrata, a centre-right political party in Portugal, SCP [ɛsəsepe] ← Sporting Clube de Portugal, a famous Portuguese football club), 2. reading acronyms (the first letters are pronounced as if they constituted a “normal” word: TAP [tap] ← Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, the Portuguese airline, LATI ['lati] ← Liga de amigos da Terceira Idade, a Portuguese association of the friends of the elderly) and 3. acronymic clippings (pronunciation of clipped constituents as “normal” words: ABRALIN ← Associação Brasileira de Lingüística, the Linguistic Association of Brazil, FENPROF ← Federação Nacional de Professores, the union of Portuguese school and university teachers).

10. References Ali, M. Said 1923 Formação de palavras e sintaxe do português histórico. São Paulo: Melhoramentos. Allen, Joseph Heatley Dulles 1966 [1941] Portuguese Word-Formation with Suffixes. New York: Kraus [= Reprint of the 1st ed. 1941. Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America]. Alves, Ieda Maria 2004 Neologismo. Criação lexical. São Paulo: Ática. Basilio, Margarida 1998 Morfológica e castilhamente: Um Estudo das Construções X-mente no Português do Brasil. Delta 14: 17−28. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S010244501998000300003&script=sci_arttext [last access 1 July 2015].

2618

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Basilio, Margarida 2004 Formação e classes de palavras no português do Brasil. São Paulo: Contexto. Bisol, Leda 2010 O diminutivo e suas demandas. Delta 26(1): 59−85. Caetano, Céu 1996 Formação de palavras em português: Os sufixóides e a vulgarização dos formantes eruditos. In: Inês Duarte and Matilde Miguel (eds.), Actas do XI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Vol. 3, 517−528. Lisboa: APL. Correia, Margarita 2004 Denominação e construção de palavras. O caso dos nomes de qualidade em português. Lisboa: Colibri. Coseriu, Eugenio 1977 Inhaltliche Wortbildungslehre (am Beispiel des Typs „coupe-papier“). In: Herbert Brekle and Dieter Kastovsky (eds.), Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung. Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Wortbildungskolloquium vom 9.−10. Juli 1976. Anläßlich des 70. Geburtstags von Hans Marchand am 1. Oktober 1977, 48−61. Bonn: Bouvier. Cunha, Celso and Luís F. Lindley Cintra 1984 Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Lisboa: Sá da Costa. Gather, Andreas 1999 Die morphologische Struktur französischer und spanischer verbaler Parasynthetika. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 115(1): 79−116. Gonçalves, Carlos Alexandre 2006 A ambimorfemia de cruzamentos vocabulares: Uma abordagem por ranking de restrições. Revista da ABRALIN 5(1−2): 169−183. Gonçalves, Carlos Alexandre and Maria Lúcia Leitão de Almeida 2004 Cruzamento vocabular no português brasileiro: Aspectos morfo-fonológicos e semântico-cognitivos. Revista Portuguesa de Humanidades 7: 135−154. Houaiss, Antônio and Mauro de Salles Villar 2001 Dicionário Houaiss da língua portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva. Kehdi, Valter 1992 Formação de palavras em português. São Paulo: Ática. Lang, Mervyn C. 1990 Spanish Word Formation. Productive derivational morphology in the modern lexis. London/New York: Routledge. Lee, Seung-Hwa 1997 Sobre os compostos do PB. Delta 13(1): 17−33. Lindner, Thomas 2003 Aspekte der lateinisch-romanischen Kompositaforschung. Moderne Sprachen 47: 115− 141. Pereira, Rui Abel 2004 Condições estruturais de formação de verbos em português. In: Graça Rio-Torto (ed.), Verbos e nomes em português, 91−127. Coimbra: Almedina. Piel, Joseph M. 1940a A formação dos nomes de lugares e de instrumentos em português. Boletim de filologia 7: 31−47. Piel, Joseph M. 1940b A formação dos substantivos abstractos em português. Biblos 16(1): 211−273. Pilla, Éda Heloisa 2002 Os neologismos do português e a face social da língua. Porto Alegre: AGE. Pöll, Bernhard 2007 Imprimante laser couleur dans sac poubelle plastique oder: Warum es komplexe linksköpfige N+N-Komposita geben kann. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 123(1): 36− 49.

144. Portuguese

2619

Rainer, Franz 1993 Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rio-Torto, Graça Maria 1998a Regras de formação de palavras em português: Achegas para um quadro geral. In: Graça Maria Rio-Torto, Morfologia derivacional. Teoria e aplicação ao português, 109−132. Porto: Porto Editora. Rio-Torto, Graça Maria 1998b Esquemas de circunfixação em português. In: Graça Maria Rio-Torto, Morfologia derivacional. Teoria e aplicação ao português, 211−221. Porto: Porto Editora. Rio-Torto, Graça Maria 2007 Estudos de morfologia em Portugal: A investigação na universidade de Coimbra. In: José Carlos Martín Camacho and María Isabel Rodríguez Ponce (eds.), Morfología. Investigación, docencia, aplicaciones. Actas del II Encuentro de Morfología: Investigación y docencia. Cáceres, 5 de mayo de 2006, 145−155. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. Rio-Torto, Graça Maria and Sílvia Ribeiro 2009 Compounding in Portuguese. Lingue e Linguaggio 7(2): 271−281. Rio-Torto, Graça, Alexandra Soares Rodrigues, Isabel Pereira, Rui Pereira and Sílvia Ribeiro 2013 Gramática derivacional do português. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. Rodrigues, Alexandra Soares 2008 Formação de substantivos deverbais sufixados em português. München: LINCOM Europa. Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke 2008 Word creation. Definition − function − typology. In: Franz Rainer, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky and Hans Christian Luschützky (eds.), Variation and Change in Morphology. Selected Papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008, 201−216. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Sandmann, Antônio José 1989 [1986] Formação de palavras no português brasileiro contemporâneo. Curitiba: Ícone. First published 1986 in German: Wortbildung im heutigen brasilianischen Portugiesisch. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. Scalise, Sergio, Antonietta Bisetto and Emiliano Guevara 2005 Selection in compounding and derivation. In: Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer and Franz Rainer (eds.), Morphology and its Demarcation. Selected papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004, 133−150. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Torner, Sergi 2005 On the morphological nature of Spanish adverbs ending in -mente. Probus 17: 115−144. Vilela, Mario 1994 Formação de palavras. In: Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik. Vol. 6/2, 173−199. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Villalva, Alina 1992 Compounding in Portuguese. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1): 201−219. Villalva, Alina 2003 Formação de palavras: Afixação. In: Maria Helena Mira Mateus, Ana Maria Brito, Inês Duarte and Isabel Hub Faria (eds.), Gramática da língua portuguesa, 939−967. Lisboa: Caminho.

Bernhard Pöll, Salzburg (Austria)

2620

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

145. Spanish 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

Abstract The present article provides a short overview of processes of word-formation in Spanish from a largely synchronic point of view.

1. Introduction Among the Romance languages, Spanish can boast today the most complete descriptions of word-formation. A first overview in book-form was published in 1920 by Alemany Bolufer who, in the spirit of his time, did not distinguish systematically between synchrony and diachrony. We then have to wait some 70 years to see more up-to-date full-scale descriptions of Spanish word-formation appear. For readers unfamiliar with Spanish or German, the only accessible manual is still Lang’s (1990) short, didactically oriented overview of present-day Spanish derivation. The most complete synchronic treatment is Rainer (1993a), written in German. Those who read Spanish can consult the third volume of Bosque and Demonte (1999) as well as the new academy grammar (NGLE 2010), which both contain substantial chapters covering the whole range of present-day Spanish word-formation. As far as diachrony is concerned, Pharies (2002) provides a synthesis of the state of the art concerning suffixation; the corresponding volume on prefixation is under way. For composition, one can now consult Moyna (2011). For bibliographic information, the reader should turn to the bibliographies included in the works cited, as well as to Rainer (1993b), Pharies (1994), García-Medall (1995) and Pena (2003). It must not be forgotten, however, that Spanish word-formation is a burgeoning field in which dozens of monographs and articles are published every year. In this overview, bibliographic references must be limited to a small selection of recent works not retrievable from the standard handbooks and bibliographies mentioned.

145. Spanish

2621

2. General overview With almost 400 million speakers, most of whom live in Latin America, Spanish is the most important of the Western Romance languages. Its great geographical extension is reflected in word-formation by the existence of many regionally confined patters. Due to space limitations, this aspect cannot be described in detail here. Geographical variation in word-formation, by the way, is a field where much research remains to be done (Tejera 2007; NGLE 2010). Overall, Spanish word-formation essentially presents the same general characteristics as that of the other standard Romance languages: affixation, especially suffixation, is by far the most important device. As in other Romance languages (cf. article 105 on the grammaticalization of prepositions in French word-formation), the dividing line between prefixation and compounding is not neat. Many prefixes originate from adverbs or prepositions. The first constituent sobre- of sobrevolar ‘to fly over’, for example, is still formally and semantically identical to the preposition sobre ‘over’, while the meaning ‘excessive’ in sobrepesca ‘over-fishing’ is the result of a process of grammaticalization which has shifted sobre- towards the affixal pole. Another area where we observe a gradient transition between affixation and compounding are the combining forms of Greek and Latin origin, which raise the same problems of delimitation as in other European languages (cf. article 90 on types of foreign word-formation and chapter X of this handbook). Since compounding was prevalently of literary usage in Latin, only very few patterns were passed down directly to Spanish and other Romance languages. (Whether V-N compounds of the type sacacorchos ‘corkscrew; lit. remove-corks’ were among these, as forcefully argued by Bork 1990, continues to be a moot question.) Most patterns of compounding, anyway, have arisen during the history of Spanish, and constitute socalled “syntagmatic compounds”, i.e. formations on the basis of lexical patterns with a syntactic structure (cf. article 12 on construction grammar, section 4). Of the remaining techniques, conversion is by far the most important. Backformation, blending, clipping, reduplication and word-creation are also used to a certain extent.

3. Composition 3.1. Nominal compounds Among nominal compounds, the most productive pattern is constituted by l e f t - h e a d e d d e t e r m i n a t i v e N - N c o m p o u n d s of the type hombre rana (Czerwenka 2009; García-Page 2011), which are situated half-way between syntagmatic compounding and compounding proper. Semantically, these compounds are much less flexible than rightheaded determinative compounds in the Germanic languages, or even the French equivalents (cf. article 38 on noun-noun compounds in French). Most of the time, only the first constituent is inflected for plural: hombres rana ‘frogmen’. In that respect, such compounds differ from c o p u l a t i v e N - N c o m p o u n d s , where both constituents must be inflected: compositor-director ‘composer-director’, pl. compositores-directores. A further difference between determinative and copulative compounds is that the former over-

2622

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

whelmingly consist of two nouns only, while the number of constituents of the latter is unlimited in principle: marxismo-leninismo-fascismo-castrismo, etc. R i g h t - h e a d e d n o m i n a l c o m p o u n d s also exist, but in productive use they are restricted to a small set of second constituents such as terapia ‘therapy’: musicoterapia ‘music therapy’ (← música ‘music’ + linking vowel -o-), jocular dineroterapia ‘money therapy’ (← dinero ‘money’), etc. Most of these compounds or mini-patterns betray a foreign origin: castrocomunismo, cóctel-bar, vasodilatación, etc. Equally marginal, as well as semantically heterogeneous, is the N-i-N pattern with a linking vowel -i-. Some are right-headed (e.g., jocular puticlub ‘hostess club’ ← puta ‘whore’), others d v a n d v a s (e.g., ajiaceite [also ajoaceite, without a linking vowel], the name of a dish containing ajo ‘garlic’ and aceite ‘oil’). Even rarer are e x o c e n t r i c V- V c o m p o u n d s , where the V formally coincides with the third person singular or the informal imperative (which are largely identical): pillapilla (a children’s game; ← pillar ‘to catch’), correcorre ‘unordered flight’ (← correr ‘to run’), duermevela ‘light sleep’ (← dormir ‘to sleep’, velar ‘to be awake’), etc. The second most frequent pattern is constituted by V- N c o m p o u n d s. This pattern has always been a favourite of students of Romance word-formation (see article 39 on verb-noun compounds in Romance). On most interpretations, compounds of this type are considered to be exocentric, since their referent is not identical to that of the N, but designates a person, instrument or, more rarely, an event not formally expressed in the compound itself: limpiabotas ‘shoe-shine boy; lit. shine-boots’, abrecartas ‘letter opener; lit. open-letters’, besamanos ‘kiss on the hand; lit. kiss-hands’, etc. The N of a V-N compound normally corresponds to the theme argument of the transitive verb V, as in the examples given, but there are also some exceptions. For example, with the first element guarda ‘to protect’, beside the regular pattern guardabosque(s) ‘ranger; lit. protect-forest(s)’, we also find compounds of the type guardabarros ‘wing (of a car); lit. protect-muds’, where the N does not refer to the thing protected but rather to the thing against which sb. or sth. is protected. This pattern obviously must have arisen by a metonymical reanalysis of the original, regular guarda-pattern. Our examples also illustrate another notable feature of at least peninsular Spanish VN compounds, viz. the tendency to pluralize the N even where this does not make sense semantically. In a besamanos, for example, one hand (mano) is kissed, not several (manos), and a guardabarros protects against mud (barro), which is a mass noun normally resisting pluralization. This anomalous behaviour bears witness to the fact that V-N compounds form a lexical pattern which cannot be derived from the corresponding syntactic phrases, at least synchronically. Another fact which points in the same direction are heavy restrictions which do not obtain for the corresponding verb phrases: a strong preference of the pattern for certain verbs (15 verbs account for half of all established formations), for bisyllabic verbs and for agentive verbs. Due to the exocentricity of the pattern, gender-assignment in V-N compounds is not determined by the noun in second position. The syntactic category of the output is also independent from that of the two constituents. It can be a noun even in the few cases where the second constituent is not a noun (cf. matasiete ‘braggart; lit. kill-seven’, mandamás ‘boss; lit. order-more’), and an adjective when it is a noun (cf. monstruo tragaestrellas ‘star-devouring monster; lit. monster devour-stars’). This adjectival usage seems to be relatively recent and must have arisen through the reanalysis of V-N compounds as adjectives in appositional sequences of the type N V-N.

145. Spanish

2623

3.2. Adjectival compounds Spanish has five patterns of adjectival compounds, A-A, A-i-A, N-A, N-i-A and A-N. Due to their Neo-Latin origin, A - A c o m p o u n d s of the type ético-moral ‘ethicomoral’ are still by and large confined to written or at least formal language where, however, they are very productive. The constituents are mostly relational adjectives, the semantic relationship being determined by the modified noun: sociedad helvéticopanameña ‘Swiss and Panamanian company’, guerra palestino-israelí ‘war between Palestine and Israel, or Palestinians and Israelis’, etc. With colour adjectives, the compound can also refer to an intermediate shade: cielo amarillo-verdoso ‘yellow-greenish sky’, etc. In some cases, furthermore, the meaning is not computed on the basis of the two adjectives, but by referring to a complex nominal base: análisis semántico-generativo ‘an analysis in the style of generative semantics [semántica generativa], not: *semantic and generative analysis’, etc. The first constituent in A-A compounds normally remains invariable (cf. helvético in the example above, which ends in masculine -o, not feminine -a, though the modified noun sociedad is feminine), and very often it is a shortened form, as in afro-asiático ‘Afro-Asiatic’, where afro- represents africano, or a suppletive form, as in greco-turco ‘Greek-Turkish’, where greco- represents griego. There is, however, an increasing tendency to also inflect the first constituent; so we find clase media alta ‘upper middle class’ beside clase medio-alta, cuestión matemática-estadística ‘mathematical-statistical question’ beside cuestión matemático-estadística, etc. The closeness of these compounds to phrases is also underlined by the fact that normally all constituents are stressed, except for short(ened) first constituents, especially in established combinations. As a consequence of the coordinative semantics, compounds of this kind can contain an, in principle, unlimited number of constituents: estudio antropológico-sociológico-lingüístico ‘a study which is anthropological, sociological and linguistic’, etc. Iteration, on the contrary, is excluded in A - i - A c o m p o u n d s , even though their meaning is also coordinative. This fact must therefore be encoded as a pattern-specific restriction. The constituents are linked with the vowel -i-: rojiblanco ‘red and white’ (← rojo ‘red’, blanco ‘white’), negriazul ‘black and blue’ (← negro ‘black’, azul ‘blue’), verdigrís ‘green and grey’ (← verde ‘green’, gris ‘grey’), agridulce ‘sour-sweet’ (← agrio ‘sour’, dulce ‘sweet’), etc. This pattern is modestly productive, especially with colour adjectives. The first constituent must be bisyllabic and end in a vowel (cf. *azulinegro, *grisiverde). N - A c o m p o u n d s do not constitute a uniform set, but a heterogeneous collection of a relatively small number of patterns of rather limited productivity. These compounds are right-headed, which is due to their foreign origin via loan translations: drogadicto ‘addicted to drugs; lit. drug-addict’, cristocéntrico ‘Christ-centered’, sur-americano ‘South-American’, mayahablante ‘Maya-speaking’, etc. The fourth type, possessive N - i - A c o m p o u n d s (Sánchez López 2003), on the contrary, is very homogeneous. Its first constituent always designates a part of the body and the adjective attributes some property to it: pelirrojo ‘red-haired; lit. hair-red’ (← pelo ‘hair’, rojo ‘red’), etc. The first constituent, furthermore, is generally bisyllabic and ends in a vowel. Within these strict limits, the pattern is modestly productive. Combinations such as rubio platino ‘platinum blonde’ are mostly considered to be N-N compounds used as appositions, since they used to remain invariable; cf. chicas rubio platino ‘platinum blonde girls’, where rubio ‘blonde’ has masculine singular in-

2624

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

flection though chicas ‘girls’ is feminine plural. Such sequences, however, have been reanalysed a s l e f t - h e a d e d A - N c o m p o u n d s , which is why we now also commonly find examples where the adjectival head shows agreement in gender and number: chicas rubias platino.

3.3. Verbal compounds Spanish has no really productive pattern of v e r b a l c o m p o u n d s. The few N-i-V compounds are probably backformations from N-i-A compounds: perniquebrar ‘to break the leg(s); lit. leg-break’ < perniquebrado ‘with a broken leg’ (← pierna ‘leg’, quebrado ‘broken’), etc. Compounds of the type Adverb + Verb are productive to a certain extent, but only with the first constituent mal ‘badly’: maltratar ‘to treat badly’, maldormir ‘to sleep badly’, etc.

3.4. Syntagmatic compounds Syntagmatic compounding cannot be treated here in detail (cf. Buenafuentes de la Mata 2010 for an overview). In the nominal domain, the most frequent patterns are N de N, e.g., hombre de negocio ‘businessman; lit. man of business’, and N-A, e.g., sociedad anónima ‘stock company; lit. company anonymous’. Formations of this kind are not, as often stated erroneously, the result of the lexicalization of regular syntactic sequences, but constitute very productive lexical patterns, which normally continue to obey the rules of Spanish syntax (for example, agreement rules), but may occasionally also deviate from them. Such is the case in A-N compounds of the type nacionalcatolicismo (← nacional ‘national’, catolicismo ‘Catholicism’), the name for the ideology of Francoism, where the relational adjective precedes the noun, contrary to normal Spanish syntax. This unorthodox word order was introduced into the Spanish language via loan translations such as nacionalsocialismo (< German Nationalsozialismus) but has since become part of a small niche of similar formations.

3.5. Neoclassical compounds Loanwords taken from (Neo-)Latin (directly or via other European languages) have been assimilated in Spanish to different degrees. The result of these processes of assimilation is that the native and the learned layer of vocabulary are much more difficult to distinguish for the speaker than, for example, in Germanic languages, or even in French. The difficulties that one faces are reflected by the important differences that exist among morphologists when it comes to compiling lists of affixes vs. combining forms. The most widely used criterion, concrete (lexeme-like) vs. abstract (affix-like) meaning, yields a cline, not a sharp division. Phonological criteria do not fare better. Most of the Spanish combining forms are internationalisms: aero- ‘air’, bio-1 ‘life’, crono- ‘time’, electro- ‘electric(ity)’, fito- ‘plant’, hidro- ‘water’, etc. Only occasionally may one of these elements be considered to be a native creation. One such candidate

145. Spanish

2625

could be diplo- in the Cuban-Spanish expression diplotienda ‘shop reserved for diplomats’ (← diplomático ‘diplomat’, tienda ‘shop’). Narco-, first attested in narcotráfico ‘drug trafficking’ and narcotraficante ‘drug dealer’, also seems to have been a LatinAmerican innovation, later on adopted in other languages. In Peru, during the presidency of Fujimori, fuji- ‘of Fujimori’ became a productive combining form (fujigolpe ← golpe ‘coup’). A fourth case in point could be lumpen-, which has been extracted from Marx’ lumpenproletariado but is now occasionally also used in other combinations such as lumpenburguesía (← burguesía ‘bourgoisie’) or lumpen-expresionismo. Combining forms generally occur both before nouns and adjectives, sometimes even before verbs: aeropuerto ‘airport’ (← puerto ‘port’), aeronaval ‘air-sea, adj.’, aerotransportar ‘to transport through the air’. As in other languages, we also observe in Spanish that initial combining forms occasionally acquire the meaning of a prominent word of which they form part: so beside bio-1 ‘life’ we find bio-2 ‘biology/biological’ (biocarburante ‘biofuel’ ← carburante ‘fuel’), and beside lipo-1 ‘fat’, lipo-2 ‘liposuction’ (lipoescultura ‘sculpture/body-shape attained by liposuction; not: *fat sculpture’).

4. Derivation As already mentioned, affixation is by far the most important technique of word-formation in Spanish. In the following discussion, affixes will be arranged according to partof-speech and meaning.

4.1. Nominal derivation Nominal derivation is extremely rich in Spanish (Amador Rodríguez 2009).

4.1.1. Denominal nouns Spanish has a wealth of p r e f i x e s which derive nouns from nouns. Most of these are of Neo-Latin origin (cf. article 91 on word-formation in Neo-Latin) and therefore shared by other European standard languages. Table 145.1 displays the main functions fulfilled by these prefixes and provides one example of the most common prefixes. Tab. 145.1: The main conceptual categories of prefixed nouns function locative

derivatives

bases

antealtar

‘place in front of the altar’

altar

‘altar’

recocina

‘room behind the kitchen’

cocina

‘kitchen’

subsuelo

‘subsoil’

suelo

‘soil’

ultramar

‘territories beyond the sea’

mar

‘sea’

2626

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Tab. 145.1: (continued) function hierarchical

derivatives

bases

archiduque

‘archduke’

duque

‘duke’

subcomandante

‘deputy commander’

comandante

‘commander’

vicepresidente

‘vice-president’

presidente

‘president’

bisabuelo

‘great-grandfather’

abuelo

‘grandfather’

tatarabuelo

‘great-greatgrandfather’

abuelo

‘grandfather’

precastrismo

‘pre-Castro period’

castrismo

‘Castroism’

posguerra

‘postwar period’

guerra

‘war’

entreacto

‘intermission’

acto

‘act’

ex presidente

‘ex president’

presidente

‘president’

neo-secretario

‘newly appointed s.’

secretario

‘secretary’

neoliberalismo

‘neoliberalism’

liberalismo

‘liberalism’

paleocapitalismo

‘early capitalism’

capitalismo

‘capitalism’

protofrancés

‘proto-French’

francés

‘French’

tardorrenacentismo

‘late Renaissance’

renacentismo

‘Renaissance’

comitative

co-editor

‘co-editor’

editor

‘editor’

quantitative

minifalda

‘miniskirt’

falda

‘skirt’

microorganismo

‘microorganism’

organismo

‘organism’

macroconcierto

‘huge concert’

concierto

‘concert’

megabanco

‘big bank’

banco

‘bank’

supermujer

‘superwoman’

mujer

‘woman’

hipersudoración

‘excessive sweating’

sudoración

‘sweating’

hipofunción

‘hypofunction’

función

‘function’

subdesarrollo

‘underdevelopment’

desarrollo

‘development’

semifracaso

‘half a failure’

fracaso

‘failure’

desamor

‘aversion’

amor

‘love’

impudor

‘shamelessness’

pudor

‘shame’

anti-héroe

‘anti-heroe’

héroe

‘hero’

pseudoprofeta

‘false prophet’

profeta

‘prophet’

no discriminación

‘non discrimination’

discriminación

‘discrimination’

contracultura

‘counter-culture’

cultura

‘culture’

temporal

intensive

negative

antagonistic

145. Spanish

2627

S u f f i x e s may be divided into the following semantic categories. The category of p e r s o n a l n o u n s is dominated by the two highly productive suffixes -ero and -ista. Of these, the first one, which continues Latin -arius, is used for more traditional roles, while -ista is preferred for more modern or prestigious roles: periodiquero ‘newspaper seller’ vs. periodista ‘journalist’ (← periódico ‘newspaper’), etc. Other suffixes remain rare: bibliotecario ‘librarian’ (← biblioteca ‘library’), cabrerizo ‘goatherd’ (← cabra ‘goat’), etc. Spanish has over a dozen suffixes for forming s t a t u s n o u n s , i.e. nouns expressing status or rank, but most of them are unproductive: diaconado (← diácono ‘deacon’), vasallaje (← vasallo ‘vassal’), cardinalato (← cardinal ‘cardinal’), almirantazgo (← almirante ‘admiral’), etc. Metonymically, some of these formations can also denote the corresponding collective, seat, territory, term of office or activity. The number of suffixes deriving denominal p l a c e n o u n s is even greater, but again most of them are unproductive. Among the more productive ones, -al/-ar derive names of fields (sandial ‘field of watermelons’ ← sandía ‘watermelon’, melonar ‘field of muskmelons’ ← melón ‘muskmelon’), -eda names of woods (olmeda ‘elm wood’ ← olmo ‘elm’), -era/-ero names of containers (azucarera ‘sugar bowl’ ← azúcar ‘sugar’, florero ‘flower vase’ ← flor ‘flower’), -ería names of points of sale (hamburguesería ‘hamburger stand’ ← hamburguesa ‘hamburger’). The largest group of denominal nouns are c o l l e c t i v e n o u n s , which often acquire pejorative overtones. Most of the more than 40 suffixes only occur in one or a few formations, and many are probably better viewed as metonymic extensions of abstract nouns (noviciado ‘noviciate’, but also ‘collective of novices’). Some of the more productive collective suffixes specialize in deriving human beings: campesinado (← campesino ‘farmer’), clerigalla (← clérigo ‘cleric’), clientela (← cliente ‘client’), rojerío (← rojo ‘communist’), etc. Names of t r e e s are derived in Spanish by one of three suffixes: almendral ← almendra ‘almond’, higuera ← higo ‘fig’, albaricoquero ← albaricoque ‘apricot’. Only rarely is the fruit derived from the tree: hayuco ‘beechnut’ ← haya ‘beech’. Names of − generally negatively valued − a c t i o n s can be derived with the two suffixes -ada and -ería: cochinada ‘filthy behaviour’ (← cochino ‘pig’), cretinería ‘foolish action’ (← cretino ‘fool’). Some derivatives in -ería can also be interpreted as metonymic extensions of quality nouns in -ería. We could also mention here the recent jocular use of the English suffix -ing for designating activities: puenting ‘bungee jumping’ (← puente ‘bridge’), etc. The suffix -ada is highly polysemous. Apart from actions and the concept of c o n t e n t s (palada ‘shovelful’ ← pala ‘shovel’), it can also denote b l o w s , s h o t s and related concepts, a derivational category which seems to be rather rare cross-linguistically, but is also represented in Spanish by the highly productive suffix -azo: cuchillada/ cuchillazo ‘knife thrust’ (← cuchillo ‘knife’), fusilazo ‘gunshot’ (← fusil ‘gun’), etc. Metonymically, these formations can also refer to the ensuing wounds. The suffix -azo, furthermore, has been extended metaphorically to designate all kinds of spectacular events, such as c o u p s (e.g., pinochetazo ← A. Pinochet). Names of s c i e n c e s can be productively derived by -ística (balcanística ‘Balkan studies’ ← Balcanes ‘Balkans’) and -ología (sexología ‘sexology’ ← sexo ‘sex’), more rarely -ografía (cristalografía) or -ometría (dialectometría). Most morphologists would

2628

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

prefer to consider the last three as neoclassical combining forms (-logía, -grafía, -metría) preceded by the linking vowel -o-. Suffixes for designating t a x e s or f e e s also exist, but are no longer productive: pontaje/pontazgo ‘bridge tax’ (← puente ‘bridge’). More often, names for taxes and other fees are metonymic extensions of abstract nouns. Other categories are represented by only one suffix, but not therefore less important. Names of doctrines, for example, take -ismo (catolicismo ← católico ‘Catholic’), which also expresses other concepts. Spanish is well-known for its exuberance of e v a l u a t i v e s u f f i x e s (over 70, if unproductive ones are included!). These may be divided into three broad groups: diminutives (including hypocoristics), augmentatives, and pejoratives. The quantitatively most conspicuous group is that of p e j o r a t i v e suffixes, with some 50 members, but most of these are unproductive or of very low productivity. In the a u g m e n t a t i v e group, three suffixes are productive, -azo, -ón and -ote: cochazo ‘big car’ (← coche ‘car’), memorión ‘prodigious memory’ (← memoria ‘memory’), librote ‘big book’ (← libro ‘book’). Augmentatives often have meliorative or pejorative overtones, depending on the suffix, the base and the wider context. Among the d i m i n u t i v e suffixes, -ito is highly productive throughout the Spanish-speaking world, while suffixes like -illo or -ico are geographically restricted. In the Caribbean region, the latter is tied to bases ending in /t/, a context where -ito is avoided: casita (← casa ‘house’) vs. galletica (← galleta ‘cookie’). In standard Peninsular Spanish the suffix -illo tends to convey a pejorative note as compared to -ito: a musiquilla (← música ‘music’) is always annoying, while the judgement attached to musiquita will entirely depend on contextual factors. For details about the semantics and pragmatics of diminutives, which is extremely complex in Spanish, the reader is referred to article 88 on the semantics and pragmatics of Romance evaluative suffixes, and for an example of subtle regional differences in the pragmatics of -ito, to Curcó (1998). As to the formal side, which is no less complex, let us mention that -ito appears as -cito after polysyllabic bases ending in -n and -r (bastoncito ← bastón ‘stick’, pastorcito ← pastor ‘sheperd’) and as -ecito after monosyllabic words (florecita ← flor ‘flower’), as well as after disyllabic words ending in -e (madrecita ← madre ‘mother’ vs. comadrita ← comadre ‘godmother’) or containing a diphthong (puertecita ← puerta ‘door’ vs. compuertita ← compuerta ‘gate’). But there is a lot of geographic, social and even individual variation concerning the exact conditions of use of these allomorphs (in Spanish word-formation it is customary to call elements such as the -c- of -cito or the -ec- of -ecito “interfixes”; Martín Camacho 2002). This variation is difficult to describe by rules of any generality, but can be successfully handled in analogical models (Eddington 2002). A fact worth mentioning is that -ito shows signs of becoming an i n f i x : not only is the inflectional ending conserved in masculine words ending in -a like di-ít-a (← dí-a ‘day’), the diminutive suffix is even inserted into the body of some mono-morphemic words like Carlos (dim.: Carl-it-os) or azúcar ‘sugar’ (dim.: azuqu-ít-ar, beside regular azucarcito), whose last syllables vaguely resemble inflectional endings.

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns The only quantitatively important category of deadjectival nouns in Spanish are q u a l i t y n o u n s (Pena 2004). There are some 30, mostly unproductive, suffixes in this

145. Spanish

2629

category, but no default suffix. The productive suffixes are all subject to heavy restrictions. The suffixes -ia and -ía, for example, are tied to bases with certain second constituents of Greek origin, such as -céfalo, -gamo, etc. for -ia and -fono, -latra, etc. for -ía. With native bases, the latter suffix is slightly productive with adjectives in -ero (patriotería ← patriotero ‘patriotic’) and -ano (cubanía ← cubano ‘Cuban’, which however could also be analysed as a denominal status noun). The etymologically related suffix -ería only attaches productively to bases denoting negative qualities (bobaliconería ← bobalicón ‘silly’). The suffix -idad (Martín Vegas 2005) is intimately tied to certain adjectival endings like ˈ-ico, -il, -ivo, -oso (sistematicidad ← sistemático ‘sistematic’, etc.). Of -eza and -ez, only the latter continues to be productive, especially with words ending in a dental and/or denoting negative qualities (absolutez ← absoluto ‘absolute’, plebeyez ← plebeyo ‘plebeian’). Last but not least, the versatile suffix -ismo can also form quality nouns under certain conditions (conformismo ← conformista ‘conformist’, casticismo ← castizo ‘genuine’). As in other languages, quality nouns also show metonymic extensions of the type una tontería ‘a stupidity’, una belleza ‘a beauty’, etc. Apart from quality nouns, only two relatively marginal a t t r i b u t i v e suffixes deserve being mentioned: frescales ‘cheeky monkey’ ← fresco ‘cheeky’, guaperas ‘handsome guy’ ← guapo ‘handsome’.

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns Deverbal nouns are the most conspicuous part of Spanish word-formation, comprising large categories such as action nouns, agent nouns, instrument nouns and place nouns. Spanish has some 60 suffixes forming a c t i o n n o u n s , of which however only half a dozen can be considered as really productive, notably -ción, -miento, -da, -do, and -ón. There is no default suffix, each of the suffixes being subject to heavy restrictions concerning potential verbal bases. Action-noun suffixes are not all perfectly synonymous, but may imply aspectual differences: while most of them nominalize the verbal base in a neutral way, some imply features like semelfactivity or repetition (cf. article 68 on action nouns in Romance). The suffix -ón, for example, apart from semelfactivity, also implies the features suddenness and intensity: empujón ‘sudden push’ (← empujar ‘to push’), parón ‘sudden stop’ (← parar ‘to stop’), etc. The suffix -dera, on the contrary, implies tedious repetition or long duration: lloradera ‘crying for no reason’ (← llorar ‘to cry’), sudadera ‘heavy sweating’ (← sudar ‘to sweat’), etc. This suffix is particularly productive in the Caribbean region. On semantic differences between -ción and -miento, cf. Lliteras (2003). As in other languages, Spanish action nouns also show frequent metonymic extensions towards the resultant state (agotamiento ‘exhaustion’ ← agotar ‘to exhaust’), the product of the action (serraduras ‘wood shavings’ ← serrar ‘to saw’), and other concepts closely associated with the action (agent, instrument, place, time, etc.). Action nouns require nominal syntax in Spanish (Monjour 2003), only nominalized infinitives allow maintaining the verbal syntax of the base. The category of a g e n t n o u n s is dominated by the suffixes -dor and -nte. The distribution of these two suffixes is a complicated matter, but one can say that the former requires the base verbs to be clearly agentive while this is no necessary requirement for the latter, which goes back to the Latin present participle (amante ‘lover’ ← amar ‘to

2630

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

love’, descendiente ‘descendant’ ← descender ‘to descend’). There are half a dozen of other agentive suffixes, but they are not productive. What is worth mentioning is a special series of agentive suffixes specialized in the designation of negative characters: cagaza ‘coward’ (← cagar ‘to shit’), acusica ‘telltale’ (← acusar ‘to accuse’), Mex. Sp. metiche ‘nosy person’ (← meterse ‘to meddle’), etc. I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s (Herwartz 2002) are derived either by adding -dor (elevador ‘elevator’ ← elevar ‘to elevate’) or its feminine counterpart -dora (licuadora ‘blender’ ← licuar ‘to blend’), which is preferred for machines (in fact, it originated through the ellipsis of máquina ‘machine’; Rainer 2009). The suffix -dera is no longer productive but occurs in many traditional names of tools (podadera ‘shears’ ← podar ‘to prune’). The other ten instrumental suffixes are also non-productive. For deriving deverbal p l a c e n o u n s Spanish has a dozen suffixes, of which however only -dero is slightly productive (abrevadero ‘watering place’ ← abrevar ‘to water’). The presence of the agentive/instrumental suffix -dor in some place nouns (comedor ‘dining room’ ← comer ‘to eat’) is due to loan translations from Old Catalan (or Old Provençal), where the Latin instrumental-locative suffix -torium had been conflated with the Latin agentive suffix -tor by the action of the sound laws (Rainer 2011).

4.2. Adjectival derivation Spanish has a rich set of derived adjectives. They can productively be formed on the bases of nouns, adjectives and verbs. Deadverbial/deprepositional adjectives are rare (delantero ‘front, adj.’ ← delante ‘in front (of)’, trasero ‘rear’ ← tras ‘behind, prep.’).

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives The most important denominal group is that of r e l a t i o n a l adjectives (Holzer 1996). Relatively rare in older stages of the language, they witnessed a spectacular growth in the standard language beginning with the 18th century under the influence of Neo-Latin, French and English. Again we find a wealth of suffixes (over 60), each of which obeys strict restrictions concerning potential bases. There is no default suffix, which is why many nouns remain without a relational adjective despite the great number of suffixes (e.g., precio ‘price’). Both with respect to the inventory of suffixes and the conditions of use, it is necessary to distinguish several subgroups: adjectives derived from common nouns and adjectives derived from proper nouns, which in turn have to be subdivided into those derived from names of persons and those derived from place names. In a complete analysis one would have to introduce even finer distinctions, since for example names of artists and politicians are not treated in exactly the same way: the first group prefers the suffix -iano (celiano ← C. J. Cela), the latter -ista (chavista ← H. Chávez), though we find both of them also in the opposite group. In the geographical series, place names from non-Spanish-speaking countries prefer -iano (cf. sahariano, washingtoniano), while this suffix is almost absent from adjectives relating to the Spanish-speaking world, where furthermore strong regional preferences can be observed, even within Spain. As García Sánchez (2005) has shown, the choice is made in analogy to the

145. Spanish

2631

dominant suffix in the region: -ano is particularly frequent in the region around Toledo since its adjective is toledano. The effective distribution of relational adjectives is very complex, especially if compared to alternative ways of expressing the same concept: so mercado petrolero ‘oil market’ (← petróleo ‘oil’) or industria petrolera ‘oil industry’ are common expressions, but you could hardly say precio petrolero ‘oil price’, a concept most commonly expressed by the “syntagmatic compound” precio del petróleo (lit. ‘price of the oil’). As in other languages, the semantic relationship expressed by combinations of noun + relational adjective is extremely flexible and essentially determined by our encyclopaedic knowledge about the two concepts involved, but the interpretation of relational adjectives is not completely free: the relation ‘made of’, for example, is almost always expressed by a combination of de ‘of’ + noun, even when a corresponding relational adjective exists (industria lanera ‘wool industry’ ← lana ‘wool’, but: *calcetín lanero ‘wool sock’ vs. calcetín de lana). As in other languages, relational adjectives easily turn into qualitative adjectives: la obra picassiana ‘Picasso’s paintings’ vs. un estilo picassiano ‘a style resembling that of Picasso’, etc. But Spanish also has some patterns which have the specific function of expressing r e s e m b l a n c e : anaranjado ‘orange, adj.’ (← naranja ‘orange, n.’), a pattern containing the circumfix a-...-ado, sanchopancesco ← Sancho Panza, ceniciento ‘ashen’ (← ceniza ‘ash’), pajizo ‘straw-coloured’ (← paja ‘straw’), draculoide ‘resembling Dracula’, sedoso ‘silky’ (← seda ‘silk’), campanudo ‘bell-shaped’ (← campana ‘bell’). Some patterns expressing resemblance also have at the same time a p o s s e s s i v e function: adinerado ‘wealthy’ (← dinero ‘money’), mugriento ‘filthy’ (← mugre ‘filth’), calizo ‘chalky’ (← cal ‘chalk’), roñoso ‘mangy’ (← roña ‘mange’), ventrudo ‘potbellied’ (← vientre ‘belly’), etc. All in all, some 25 suffixes express possession. Despite this partial overlapping in function between relational, possessive and similative adjectives, the three categories should be kept apart, since for several patterns one of the functions can clearly be regarded as the dominant one. Other derivational categories also exist, but are of minor importance. I will only mention here the category of what one might call a p p e t i t i v e adjectives: wagneriano, or stronger: wagnerómano/wagnerólatra ‘admiring Wagner’ (← R. Wagner), librecambista ‘in favour of free trade’ (← librecambio ‘free trade’), chocolatero ‘chocoholic’, mujeriego ‘womanizing’ (← mujer ‘woman’).

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives A first group of patterns that could be mentioned here are combinations of prefixes and relational adjectives, where the prefix however has scope over the nominal base of the adjective. Table 145.2 lists the most important prefixes involved, most of which have equivalents in other European languages. To these one can add the series constituted by a n u m e r a l p r e f i x and a relational adjective, of the type mono-, bi-, tri-, cuatri-, etc. -lingüe. For some prefixes, it is also possible to use the noun alone instead of the relational adjective: (vehículo) bi-plaza ‘two-seated; lit. two-seat (vehicle)’, (servicio) postventa ‘after-sales (service)’, etc. According to Martín García (2005), however, such formations should be viewed as nouns in apposition, not adjectives.

2632

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Tab. 145.2: Patterns of prefix + relational adjective in Spanish prefix

example

nominal base

inter-

‘between’

intercontinental

continente

‘continent’

intra-

‘inside’

intramuscular

músculo

‘muscle’

extra-

‘outside of’

extramatrimonial

matrimonio

‘marriage’

circum-

‘around’

circumpolar

polo

‘pole’

infra-

‘below’

infrasónico

sonido

‘sound’

sub-

‘under’

submarino

mar

‘sea’

super-

‘over’

superindividual

individuo

‘individual’

supra-

‘over’

supranacional

nación

‘nation’

cis-

‘on this side of’

cisalpino

Alpes

‘Alps’

hiper-

‘beyond’

hipersónico

sonido

‘sound’

trans-

‘trough, beyond’

transatlántico

Atlántico

‘Atlantic Ocean’

ultra-

‘beyond’

ultrapirenaico

Pirineos

‘Pyrenees’

ante-

‘before’

antediluviano

diluvio

‘Flood’

pre-

‘before’

precolombino

Colón

‘Columbus’

pos(t)-

‘after’

posconciliar

concilio

‘council’

anti-

‘anti-’

antichino

China

‘id.’

filo-

‘pro-’

filochino

China

‘id.’

pro-

‘pro’

prochino

China

‘id.’

equi-

‘same’

equicategorial

categoría

‘category’

homo-

‘same’

homocategorial

categoría

‘category’

iso-

‘same’

isosílabo

sílaba

‘syllable’

hetero-

‘other’

heterocategorial

categoría

‘category’

pan-

‘all’

panamericano

América

‘id.’

Qualitative adjectives form the bases of a long series of intensive and diminutive prefixes, of which some are pan-European (archi-, extra-, hiper-, super-, ultra-), while others are specifically Spanish (re-, requete-, rete-); cf. Rodríguez Ponce (2002), García Jiménez (2009). Spanish also has a rich set of deadjectival adjectival suffixes. One important category is constituted by i n t e n s i v e affixes. The h i g h d e g r e e is expressed by the suffix -ísimo (guapísimo ‘very handsome’ ← guapo ‘handsome’) or lexically governed -érrimo, in some Latin-American countries also by augmentative -azo and -ote (grandote ‘very big’ ← grande ‘big’). In hyperbolic contexts, intensive prefixes and suffixes are sometimes combined (archiviejísimo ← viejo ‘old’, requeteguapísimo,

145. Spanish

2633

etc.). The suffix -ísimo can also be subject to partial reduplication (guapisísimo), -ote can be iterated theoretically indefinitely in Mexico (grandotototote). The second most important group is constituted by a p p r o x i m a t i v e suffixes. There are only a few unproductive prefixes expressing approximation, while the list of approximative suffixes is quite long. In part these are diminutive suffixes (azulito ‘blueish’ ← azul ‘blue’, tontillo ‘a bit silly’ ← tonto ‘silly’), but most of them are specialized in this function. They are generally unproductive, however, and only occur in one or a few colour terms: grisáceo (← gris ‘grey’), amarillento (← amarillo ‘yellow’), blanquecino (← blanco ‘white’), rojizo (← rojo ‘red’), negruzco (← negro ‘black’), etc. The suffix -ón is productively used in this function, but only in some Latin-American countries (gordón ‘somewhat fat’ ← gordo ‘fat’). Apart from these affixes expressing the high or approximative degree, there are also prefixes expressing e x c e s s or i n s u f f i c i e n c y : hipercrítico ‘overly critical’ (← crítico ‘critical’), infrapagado ‘underpayed’ (← pagado ‘payed’), subempleado ‘underemployed’ (← empleado ‘emplyed’). Other degrees expressed derivationally are ‘almost’ (cuasi-congelado ‘almost frozen’ ← congelado ‘frozen’) and ‘half’ (semiseco ‘half-dry’ ← seco ‘dry’). Last but not least, Spanish has a series of n e g a t i v e prefixes (Montero Curiel 1999). a- (aconfesional ‘non confessional’) and no (no confesional ‘non confessional’) express complementary negation, while des- (desfavorable ‘unfavorable’), dis- (disconforme ‘who disagrees’ ← conforme ‘who agrees’) and in- (incompetente ‘incompetent’) express contradictory negation.

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal adjectives fall into three categories: active, passive, and passive-potential. A c t i v e adjectives are of two types: “pure” ones which may be glossed simply as ‘that Vs’, and others which have an additional dispositional feature (‘prone to V’). Some suffixes can express both meanings at the same time, especially the most productive suffix -dor: conmovedor ‘moving’ (← conmover ‘to move’) vs. ahorrador ‘thrifty’ (← ahorrar ‘to save’). But most of them express only one meaning. There are more than a dozen suffixes of the pure type: deprimente ‘depressing’ (← deprimir ‘to depress’), decorativo ‘decorative’ (← decorar ‘to decorate’), difamatorio ‘defamatory’ (← difamar ‘to vilify’), etc. Half a dozen suffixes are of the dispositional type: atrevido ‘daring’ (← atreverse ‘to dare’), adulón ‘flattering’ (← adular ‘to flatter’), etc. P a s s i v e adjectives are past participles and should probably be considered as cases of conversion (asfaltado ‘asphalted’ ← asfaltar ‘to asphalt’). As we have just seen in the last paragraph (cf. atrevido), this same suffix is also used in Spanish in an active, mostly dispositional meaning, depending on the meaning of the verbal base. P a s s i v e - p o t e n t i a l adjectives, i.e. those with the meaning ‘that can be Ved’, are formed productively by -ble (inflable ‘inflatable’ ← inflar ‘to inflate’). In some contexts, -ble can also express a deontic meaning (‘that should/must be Ved’): condenable ‘reprehensible’ (← condenar ‘to condemn’), etc. Marginal suffixes of this type are -dero, -dizo and -ntío.

2634

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

4.3. Verbal derivation Spanish has a wealth of suffixes for deriving verbs (Rifón 1997; Beniers 2004).

4.3.1. Denominal verbs Apart from conversion, Spanish has 14 denominal verb-forming patterns. Each of these patterns has a different degree of productivity, different preferences concerning the base nouns and to some extent also a different semantics, which cannot be described in detail here. Intransitive verbs with the meaning ‘to behave like an N’, for example, are almost exclusively formed by the suffix -ear (gandulear ‘to laze about’ ← gandul ‘lazybones’), while at least four patterns can form transitive verbs with the meaning ‘to act as an N (with respect to the object of the verb)’ (pilotar ‘to pilot’ [conversion] ← piloto ‘pilot’; pastorear ‘to pasture’ ← pastor ‘herdsman’; tiranizar ‘to tyrannize’ ← tirano ‘tyrant’; apadriñar ‘to act as godfather of’ ← padrino ‘godfather’). There are a dozen further well-represented semantic niches of this kind (ornative, privative, ablative, causative, instrumental, resultative, locative, etc.), and in each niche the distribution of the patterns is different. Instrumental verbs, for example, are formed by conversion, by the suffix -ear, as well as by the parasynthetic patterns aNar and aNear, while the most productive suffix, -izar, is conspicuously absent. Such distributional facts, which await a detailed description, are hardly compatible with the popular view according to which denominal verbs are endowed with a minimal semantics, the concrete meanings being determined only by our encyclopaedic knowledge.

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Deadjectival verbs are either f a c t i t i v e or i n c h o a t i v e. There are no less than 14 patterns expressing the first of these categories, of which however only parasynthetic verbs of the form aAar (acortar ‘to shorten’ ← corto ‘short’) and verbs in -izar (rigidizar ‘to make more rigid’ ← rígido ‘rigid’) are productive. Of the seven patterns forming inchoative verbs, none seems to be productive. Inchoativity is normally expressed by using the reflexive form of the corresponding transitive verb (borracho ‘drunk’ → emborrachar ‘to make drunk’ → emborracharse ‘to get drunk’).

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs Spanish has about 50 deverbal verb-forming p r e f i x e s , of which however only a dozen are really productive (Martín García 1998; Felíu Arquiola 2003). Auto- stresses that the action is performed by the subject itself and not by somebody else (autodestruirse ‘to destroy oneself’ ← destruirse ‘to destroy oneself’), co- expresses that it is performed together with somebody else (cofabricar ‘to co-produce’ ← fabricar ‘to produce’), desdenotes reversal (desmaquillar ‘to remove make-up’ ← maquillar ‘to put make-up’),

145. Spanish

2635

infra- and sub- add a feature of insufficiency (infra-/subvalorar ‘to undervalue’ ← valorar ‘to value’), sobre- one of excess (sobrevalorar ‘to overvalue’), medio − which can be construed both as an adverb and as a prefix − and semi- indicate that only half of the action has been carried out (medio desnudarse, semidesnudarse ‘to undress half way’ ← desnudarse ‘to undress’), pre- that it is carried out before some point in time (precocinar ‘to precook’ ← cocinar ‘to cook’), and re- expresses repetition (reescribir ‘to rewrite’ ← escribir ‘to write’). The approximately twenty s u f f i x e s which fall into this section invariably express a k t i o n s a r t (iteration, diminution), intermingled with evaluative − mostly pejorative − overtones (cf. article 84 for the corresponding Italian verbs). None of them is really productive (besuquear ‘to cover with kisses’ ← besar ‘to kiss’, etc.).

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs are productively derived from adjectives by adding -mente to the feminine form of the base (rápidamente ‘swiftly’ ← rápido, fem. rápida ‘swift’); cf. article 106 on the Romance adverbs in -mente. The meaning varies a lot, the most frequent readings being ‘in an A manner’ and ‘from an A point of view’ (with relational adjectives: políticamente ‘politically’ ← político ‘political’).

5. Conversion Conversion exists in all parts of speech. Most of the time, the result is adapted to the inflectional morphology of the part of speech in question. On conversions on the basis of discourse elements, such as pagaré ‘promissory note; lit. I shall pay’, cf. Casado Velarde (2010).

5.1. Nominal conversion The bases of nominal conversions can be nouns, adjectives or verbs. Nouns referring to males can be feminized by simple conversion or by adding the feminine inflectional suffix -a where required: líder f. ← líder m., profesora ← profesor, chica ‘girl’ ← chico ‘boy’, etc. The effective use of f e m i n i z a t i o n , encouraged by gender-mainstreamers, is currently subject to great uncertainty and regional variation (Roca 2009; Haase 2010). Another type of denominal conversion transforms a fruit name into the corresponding t r e e name (castaño ← castaña ‘chestnut’). Adjectives can be turned into abstract nouns ([el] ancho ‘[the] breadth’ ← ancho ‘broad’), and more productively into personal nouns ([un] pobre ‘[a] poor man’ ← pobre ‘poor’; [un] físico ‘[a] physicist’ ← físico ‘physical’). These are real conversions, while formations like zoológico ‘zoo’ (← zoológico ‘zoological’) are better viewed as elliptical (the noun parque ‘park’ is still retrievable). As we have already mentioned in section 4.1.3, the infinitive can freely be nominalised in Spanish, a process which is probably better viewed as syntactic (cf. el haber bebido

2636

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Juan tanta cerveza ‘John’s having drunk so much beer; lit. the to-have drunk John somuch beer’), though some nominalized infinitives are now simple nouns which can even be pluralized (cantar ‘poem’, pl. cantares ← cantar ‘to sing’). Real cases of conversion are action nouns such as pesca ‘fishing’ (← pescar ‘to fish’), cese ‘firing’ (← cesar ‘to fire’), tapeo ‘tapas-eating’ (← tapear ‘to eat tapas’), which show the class markers -a, -e and -o, as well as control ‘control’ (← controlar ‘to control’).

5.2. Adjectival conversion Nouns can be converted into adjectives in several ways. The most productive bases are nouns associated with a characteristic colour (violeta ‘purple’ ← violeta ‘violet’) and nouns associated with a characteristic behaviour (cochino ‘filthy’ ← cochino ‘pig’). Nouns ending in a suffix-like sequence are often turned into relational adjectives by conversion (matemático ‘mathematical’ ← matemática ‘mathematics’; gomero ‘from La Gomera’, cf. Rainer 2008). Some adverbs can be used in an adjectival position without formal adaptation, but this process is possibly better viewed as syntactic (el entonces presidente ‘the then president’).

5.3. Verbal conversion Both nouns and adjectives are commonly turned into verbs by conversion, as we have already mentioned in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.

5.4. Adverbial conversion Besides those in -mente, there is also a sizeable number of adverbs which remain formally identical to the adjectives which they derive from: hablar alto ‘to speak loud’, respirar hondo ‘to breathe deep’, etc. In the standard language this kind of conversion is essentially restricted to a small set of adjectives in combination with a small set of verbs, while in informal varieties the process is more extensively used (Hummel 2000).

6. Backformation Backformations have occurred throughout the history of Spanish word-formation (e.g., legislar ‘to legislate’, from legislación ‘legislation’ or legislador ‘legislator’), but there is no synchronically productive pattern.

7. Reduplication Reduplication is a relatively marginal phenomenon in Spanish. As we have seen in section 4.2.2, intensive affixes can be iterated, which is not a prototypical case of redupli-

145. Spanish

2637

cation, however. Nominal V-V compounds (cf. section 3.1) are relatively rare. Felíu Arquiola (2011) argues that full reduplication of nouns (mujer mujer ‘real woman’ ← mujer ‘woman’), which implies that the noun should be taken in its prototypical meaning, should be viewed as a “construction” and envisages a similar treatment for the intensifying reduplication of adjectives (tonto tonto ‘very stupid’) and adverbs (muy muy grande ‘very very big’). As in all languages, there is some repetition of phonological material in onomatopoeia (cucú ‘cry of the cuckoo’, etc.), and Pharies (1986) has described a series of prosodic templates which can be granted the status of phonaestemes, especially in substandard varieties (cf. ringorrangos ‘frills’, tiquismiquis ‘petty quibbling’, etc.).

8. Blending Blending was already practiced in jocular language in the Spanish of the Golden Age (cf. ramería ‘wild pilgrimage’ ← romería ‘pilgrimage’ x ramera ‘whore’), but has gained great popularity over the last decades, probably under Anglo-American influence. Its general strategies are very much the same as in other languages (Piñeros 2004). The splinter -gate ‘scandal’, originally detached from Watergate, has become productive also in Spanish journalistic usage: Zapaterogate, espía-gate ← espía ‘spy’, etc. (Méndez Santos 2011).

9. Clipping Clipping is a very popular process in colloquial Spanish. The output, in the normal case, corresponds to the unmarked foot in Spanish prosody (two syllables, stress on the first syllable; cf. Piñeros 2000): progre (← progresista ‘progressive’), cumple (← cumpleaños ‘birthday’), etc. In slang words, we also find trisyllabic outputs, occasionally with a “parasitic” ending: Atleti (← Atlético de Madrid, a football team), masoca (← masoquista ‘masochist’), etc. This latter example comes close to colloquial formations in -ata, a suffix which truncates its base in order to produce a tri-, more rarely quadrisyllabic output: bocata (← bocadillo ‘sandwich’), ordenata (← ordenador ‘computer’), etc. Furthermore, the use of a c r o n y m s (e.g., OTAN /otan/ ‘NATO’) and a b b r e v i a t i o n s (e.g., S.A.R. ‘Her Majesty’, from Su Alteza Real) has grown in Spanish as in other languages, especially since the second half of the 20th century.

10. Word-creation There are two phenomena which might be classified as word-creation in the sense of this handbook. On one hand, b r a n d n a m e s can be created in Spanish in a manner which is just as artificial as in other languages (cf. Telmex, name of a Mexican telephone company). More interesting are word games, practiced in some Latin-American countries, which consist in the playful deformation of words, often with the help of suffixes

2638

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

used in a fanciful way: ¡clarífico!, ¡clarín!, ¡clarinete! (← ¡claro! ‘Of course!’), cafesiano (← café ‘coffee’), etc.

11. References Alemany Bolufer, José 1920 Tratado de la formación de palabras en la lengua castellana. Madrid: Suárez. Amador Rodríguez, Luis Alexis 2009 La derivación nominal en español. Nombres de agente, instrumento, lugar y acción. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Beniers, Elisabeth 2004 La formación de verbos en el español de México. México: El Colegio de México. Bork, Hans Dieter 1990 Die lateinisch-romanischen Zusammensetzungen Nomen + Verb und der Ursprung der romanischen Verb-Ergänzung-Komposita. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. Bosque, Ignacio and Violeta Demonte (eds.) 1999 Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 3: Entre la oración y el discurso. Morfología. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Buenafuentes de la Mata, Cristina 2010 La composición sintagmática en español. San Millán de la Cogolla: cilengua. Casado Velarde, Manuel 2010 Discurso y creación léxica: Delocutivos y decitativos en español. Revista de Investigación Lingüística 13: 65−85. Curcó, Carmen 1998 ¿No me harías un favorcito?: Reflexiones en torno a la expresión de la cortesía verbal en el español de México y el español peninsular. Diálogos Hispánicos 22: 129−171. Czerwenka, Christine 2009 Substantiv + Substantiv im Spanischen. Wortbildung und Grammatik. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Eddington, David 2002 Spanish diminutive formation without rules or constraints. Linguistics 40: 395−419. Felíu Arquiola, Elena 2003 Morfología derivativa y semántica léxica. La prefijación de auto-, co- e inter-. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Felíu Arquiola, Elena 2011 Las reduplicaciones léxicas nominales en español actual. Verba 38: 95−126. García Jiménez, Inmaculada 2009 Apuntaciones sobre dos prefijos tan populares como desconocidos: rete- y requete-. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 60: 239−275. García-Medall, Joaquín 1995 Casi un siglo de formación de palabras del español (1900−1994). Guía bibliográfica. València: Facultad de filología, Universitat de València. García-Page, Mario 2011 Hombre clave, hombre rana, ¿un mismo fenómeno? Verba 38: 127−170. García Sánchez, Jairo Javier 2005 Irradiación analógica en la formación de gentilicios. Vox Romanica 64: 160−170. Haase, Peter 2010 Feminisierung im spanischen Sprachraum. Hamburg: Kovač. Herwartz, Rachel 2002 Lavadora, cafetera, sacacorchos − Spanische Gerätebezeichnungen in Technik, Werbung und Alltag. Frankfurt/M.: Lang.

145. Spanish

2639

Holzer, Peter 1996 Das Relationsadjektiv in der spanischen und deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Wilhelmsfeld: Egert. Hummel, Martin 2000 Adverbale und adverbialisierte Adjektive im Spanischen. Konstruktionen des Typs Los niños duermen tranquilos und María corre rápido. Tübingen: Narr. Lang, Mervyn F. 1990 Spanish Word Formation. Productive derivational morphology in the modern lexis. London/New York: Routledge. Lliteras, Margarita 2003 Concurrencia histórica de los derivados en -ción y -miento. In: Fernando Sánchez Miret (ed.), Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica (Salamanca, 24−30 septiembre 2001). Vol. 1, 377−384. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Martín Camacho, José Carlos 2002 El problema lingüístico de los interfijos españoles. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. Martín García, Josefa 1998 La morfología léxico-conceptual. Las palabras derivadas con RE-. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Martín García, Josefa 2005 Los nombres prefijados en aposición. Verba 32: 25−57. Martín Vegas, Rosa Ana 2005 ¿Segmentación morfemática o reanálisis? Formaciones con el sufijo -idad o *-abilidad, *-icidad, *-eidad ... . Moenia 11: 269−281. Méndez Santos, María del Carmen 2011 Sobre -gate: Origen, significado y comportamiento morfológico. Cuadernos del Instituto Historia de la lengua 6: 23−43. Monjour, Alf 2003 La valencia nominal en español: Observaciones y sugerencias. In: Fernando Sánchez Miret (ed.), Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica (Salamanca, 24−30 septiembre 2001). Vol. 1, 89−101. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Montero Curiel, María Luisa 1999 La prefijación negativa en español. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. Moyna, María Irene 2011 Compound Words in Spanish. Theory and history. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. NGLE = Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española 2010 Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Pena, Jesús 2003 Los estudios de morfología del español en España durante los últimos 25 años (1979− 2003). Lingüística Española Actual 25: 7−38. Pena, Jesús 2004 Morfología de los nombres de cualidad derivados. Verba 31: 7−42. Pharies, David 1986 Structure and Analogy in the Playful Lexicon of Spanish. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pharies, David 1994 Bibliography of Latin and Ibero-Romance Suffixation. Madison: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. Pharies, David 2002 Diccionario etimológico de los sufijos españoles. Madrid: Gredos. Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo 2000 Prosodic and segmental unmarkedness in Spanish truncation. Linguistics 38: 63−98.

2640

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo 2004 The creation of portmanteaus in the extragrammatical morphology of Spanish. Probus 16: 203−240. Rainer, Franz 1993a Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rainer, Franz 1993b Setenta años (1921−1990) de investigación en la formación de palabras del español moderno: Bibliografía crítica selectiva. In: Soledad Varela (ed.), La formación de palabras, 30−70. Madrid: Taurus. Rainer, Franz 2008 Inhibition of suffixation by suffix-like final strings in Spanish. In: Bernard Fradin (ed.), La raison morphologique. Hommage à la mémoire de Danielle Corbin, 175−195. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Rainer, Franz 2009 El origen de los nombres de instrumento en -dora del español. Vox Romanica 68: 199− 217. Rainer, Franz 2011 The agent-instrument-place “polysemy” of the suffix -TOR in Romance. STUF − Language Typology and Universals 64: 8−32. Rifón, Antonio 1997 Pautas semánticas para la formación de verbos en español mediante sufijación. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Roca, Ignacio M. 2009 Todas las vascas son vascos, y muchos vascos también vascas: Género y sexo en el castellano. Boletín de la Real Academia Española 89: 77−117. Rodríguez Ponce, María Isabel 2002 La prefijación apreciativa en español. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. Sánchez López, Cristina 2003 La relación de posesión inalienable en los compuestos. In: José Luis Girón Alconchel, F. Javier Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, Silvia Iglesias Recuero and Antonio Narbona Jiménez (eds.), Estudios ofrecidos al profesor José Jesús de Bustos Tovar. Vol. 1, 157−169. Madrid: Editorial Complutense. Tejera, María Josefina 2007 La derivación mixta en el español de Venezuela. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.

Franz Rainer, Vienna (Austria)

146. Catalan

2641

146. Catalan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Reduplication Truncation processes References

Abstract In this article the main processes and elements of word-formation in contemporary Catalan are analysed, mainly on the basis of the neologisms gathered by the Observatory for Neologisms (OBNEO) founded in 1989 and located at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona.

1. Introduction Catalan, a Western Romance language, is spoken by about 8,000,000 people, mostly in four Spanish regions, three of which have Catalan as their official language (Catalonia, the Valencian Community and the Balearic Islands). Catalan is also spoken in a small part of Aragon and Murcia (Spain), in Andorra, Roussillon (France), as well as the city of Alghero in Sardinia (Italy). The study of word-formation in Catalan from a synchronic perspective is fairly recent, since up to the second half of the twentieth century the historical point of view dominated in Catalan linguistics. Studies on the lexicon mainly presented lists of words arranged according to substratum and other contact languages. Marvà (1968 [1934]) presented the different types of structures words can have, but it is not until Badia (1962) that wordformation was treated explicitly as a dynamic phenomenon. Badia presents all the wordformation processes as they have later been described in grammars and handbooks of lexicology. The first treatment of word-formation from a general perspective is that of Cabré and Rigau (1985), which understands word-formation as a process based on a lexicon made up of morphemic entries which gives rise to the possible words of Catalan by means of a set of lexical rules. This work, however, does not explain why many of the possible words never become actual words. The second overall work on the lexical morphology of Catalan is Cabré (1994). In this study, contrary to the previous work, word-formation has a lexemic base, which allows one to avoid lexical overgeneration. Preceeding the publication of the Gramàtica del català contemporani (2002), some master and doctoral theses appeared on Catalan lexical morphology (Bernal 1997, 2000; Bayà 1997; Rull 1998, 2007; Turon 1999; Solé 2002), as well as some articles on the grammatical description of the lexicon (Saragossà 1991). During this same period, some

2642

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

linguists treated word-formation in relation to grammar (Ruaix 1986; Rull 1999, 2004). In recent years E. Bernal and X. Rull have been the authors who have studied and analyzed the lexical morphology of Catalan most systematically from a descriptive perspective. Rull (2009a, 2009b) deserve special mention for their panoramic view. The two dictionaries on word-formation published in the first decade of the 21st century, López del Castillo (2002) and Bruguera (2006), constitute contributions of a different kind. Due to its importance as a synthesis, the publication in 2002 of the Gramàtica del català contemporani, directed by J. Solà and co-ordinated by M. R. Lloret, J. Mascaró and M. Pérez Saldaña, must be considered as a turning point in Catalan morphology. This grammar includes four chapters on lexical morphology: “La derivació” (M. T. Cabré Castellví), “La composició” (L. Gràcia), “Altres elements lèxics” (M. Lorente) and “Altres sistemes de formació de mots” (T. Cabré Monné).

2. General overview Word-formation in Catalan does not differ much from the rest of the Romance languages, especially the closely related ones (Spanish, Occitan). The word-formation processes are in general very much the same, although they can differ in the degree of accessibility and productivity. In this article, following the general outline proposed in this volume for the description of all languages, prefixation is treated within derivation, though separating unstressed prefixes from stressed prefixes (treated within composition by many authors). Multi-word units are included in the section on composition, though I consider them to be mainly a syntactic phenomenon. Neoclassical formations are not treated in one block, but distributed among prefixed, suffixed and compound structures depending on the features of the formants which compose them.

3. Composition Compounds in Catalan are words formed by at least two lexical bases. These bases, which are normally simple, may belong to one of the four main lexical categories: noun, adjective, verb or adverb, and may produce units also belonging to these four categories.

3.1. Compound nouns The most frequent structures for compound nouns in Catalan, regardless of their written form, are the following: a) N+A (or present participle): capgròs ‘tadpole; lit. head big’, aiguaardent ‘brandy; lit. water burning’; b) N+N: aiguaneu ‘sleet; lit. water snow’, vagó llit ‘sleeping car; lit. waggon bed’;

146. Catalan

2643

c) N+Prep+N: blat de moro ‘sweetcorn; lit. wheat of Moor’, arc de Sant Martí ‘rainbow; lit. arch of saint Martin’; d) N+Conj+N: punt i coma ‘semicolon; lit. dot and comma’, coliflor ‘cauliflower; lit. cabbage and flower’; e) A+N: malson ‘nightmare; lit. bad sleep’, trespeus ‘tripod; lit. three feet’; f) V+N: passaport ‘passport’, escura-xemeneies ‘chimney sweep; lit. sweep chimneys’ (cf. Estopà 2010); g) V(+Conj)+V: vaivé ‘swing; lit. go and come’, estira-i-arronsa ‘hard bargaining; lit. stretch and ease’.

3.2. Compound verbs The possibilities for the formation of verbs by composition are very few: a) N+V: alatrencar ‘to break (a bird’s) wings; lit. wing-break’, ullferir ‘to injure the eye; lit. eye-injure’; b) Adv+V: malfiar-se ‘to mistrust; lit. badly-trust’, menystenir ‘to underestimate; lit. less-hold’. Almost all the units composed by adverb + verb include the adverbs ben ‘well’ and mal ‘badly’.

3.3. Compound adjectives The formation of compound adjectives complies with the following structures: a) N+A (or participle): bocamoll ‘talkative; lit. mouth soft’, esmaperdut ‘disoriented; lit. mood lost’; b) A+A: agredolç ‘sweet-and-sour; lit. sour-sweet’, històrico-arqueològic ‘historicalarchaeological’; c) A+N: pocapena ‘rogue; lit. little punishment’, gris perla ‘pearl grey; lit. grey pearl’; d) Adv + past or present participle: benvingut ‘welcome’, malsonant ‘rude; lit. badly sounding’. Again, the adverbs appearing in the structure are ben and mal.

3.4. Types of compounds Compounds in Catalan, which must always include at least one head imposing the grammatical category on the unit, may be classified according to the following criteria: a) Type of composition: root compounds (filferro ‘wire; lit. wire iron’, camacurt ‘shortlegged; lit. leg short’) vs. syntagmatic compounds (including prepositions and conjunctions: allioli ‘garlic mayonnaise; lit. garlic and oil’, mal de cap ‘headache; lit. ache of head’); b) Headedness: endocentric compounds (malnom ‘nickname; lit. bad name’) vs. exocentric compounds (guardapols ‘wing (of a car); lit. protect dust’); c) Relation among the components: coordinative compounds (sordmut ‘deaf-mute’) vs. determinative compounds (cartó pedra ‘papier mâché; lit. cardboard stone’);

2644

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

d) Semantics: fully compositional compounds (camisa de dormir ‘nightdress; lit. shirtof-sleeping’) vs. partially compositional compounds (cobrellit ‘bedspread; lit. (to) cover bed’) vs. non-compositional compounds (pixatinters ‘pen-pusher; lit. (to) pee inkwells’); e) Inflection: at the right edge only (celoberts ‘courtyards’) vs. internally (vagons restaurant ‘dining cars’) vs. on both constituents (guàrdies municipals ‘municipal police officers’). The written form of compounds is not an entirely linguistic issue. Many of the root compounds are written as one word, unless they have the inflection on the first component of the compound (vagons llit ‘sleeping coaches’). Among syntagmatic compounds, only the completely lexicalized ones are written as one word (rerefons ‘background’).

3.5. Neoclassical composition This section deals with words formed by lexical bases from ancient Greek and Latin belonging to the categories noun, verb and adjective, without lexical autonomy in the current language. Examples of prototypical neoclassical compounds are: al·lomorf ‘allomorph’, regicida ‘regicide’. There are homogeneous neoclassical compounds in which the formants originate from the same classical language: Latin-Latin (caducifoli ‘deciduous’), Greek-Greek (neuràlgia ‘neuralgia’), or hybrid neoclassical compounds: Greek-Latin (etnocidi ‘ethnocide’) and Latin-Greek (ludoteca ‘toy library’). There are also hybrid compounds formed by combining a base from the native language with a classical form (enoturisme ‘wine tourism’, insecticida ‘insecticide’). We usually refer to these as “compounds in the classical manner”. This process of hybrid composition may be used creatively to play games with words: escudellòmetre ‘an instrument for measuring escudella (noodles or rice soup)’. As in all Romance languages, neoclassical compounds have the head on the right and follow the determiner-determined order typical of classical languages.

4. Derivation Derivation is the morphological process by which a lexical base (simple or complex) is combined with an affix (prefix or suffix). Some authors also place interfixes between prefixes and suffixes (on interfixes in Romance, see article 31), but interfixation is not a productive resource in Catalan. Most interfixes, in fact, are empty morphemes without a semantic or functional value, i.e. simple phonological segments between a stem and a suffix (-al- in apegalós ‘sticky’, -all- in rocallós ‘rocky’, -eg- in bonyegut ‘dented’, -inin blanquinós ‘whitish’). In a few cases, however, interfixes act as semantically distinctive elements (ferrer ‘blacksmith’ vs. ferreter ‘hardware dealer’) or as elements nuancing the meaning of the word (enfeinat ‘busy’ vs. enfeinassat ‘very busy’).

146. Catalan

2645

4.1. Prefixation Prefixation is a very productive resource in word-formation. The base may be simple (mar ‘sea’ → ultramar ‘overseas’) or complex (possible ‘possible’ → possibilitar ‘to make possible’ → impossibilitar ‘to make impossible’), it may belong to one of the main lexical classes and may lead to the formation of nominal, verbal, adjectival or adverbial units. From the point of view of phonology, morphology and syntax, prefixation is quite a heterogenous process (Bayà 1997: 135−136). Phonologically there are s t r e s s e d prefixes (sota-, ultra-, arxi-) and u n s t r e s s e d prefixes (des-, re-, co-). Between stressed and unstressed prefixes there are borderline cases difficult to classify. For example, the prefix pre- in Catalan has two possible variants, a stressed one and an unstressed one. In its stressed form, pronounced [prέ], we find words like preromà ‘pre-Roman’, prematrimonial ‘premarital’ (written with a hyphen before the orthographical reform in 1995: pre-romà, pre-matrimonial). With the unstressed form, pronounced [prə] in dialects with vowel neutralization, we find: predir ‘to foretell’, preexistir ‘to pre-exist’. This prefix pre-, both stressed and unstressed, originates diachronically from the same form, which in some cases has undergone lexicalization to the point of becoming fossilized in the word. As far as the morphological characteristics are concerned, there are different types of prefixes according to the following two criteria: the capacity to recategorize the roots to which they are bound and the category of the roots with which they may combine. As for the capacity to recategorize the lexical bases, prefixes may be r e c a t e g o r i z i n g and n o n - r e c a t e g o r i z i n g. Jorn ‘day’, terra ‘earth’, mirall ‘mirror’ and sabó ‘soap’ are initially nouns which become verbs thanks to the prefixes a-, en- (ajornar ‘to postpone’, enterrar ‘to bury’, ensabonar ‘to soap’). Covard ‘coward’, negre ‘black’, tèrbol ‘cloudy’ are adjectives that also become verbs thanks to the same prefixes (acovardir ‘to intimidate’, amagrir/emmagrir ‘to lose weight’, ennegrir ‘to blacken’, enterbolir ‘to cloud’). And besnét ‘great-grandson’, ultramar ‘overseas’, copríncep ‘coprince’ are prefixed nouns formed on the basis of nominal stems. However, the status of a recategorizing or non-recategorizing prefix is, at times, unclear. There are prefixes such as a- and en- that always recategorize a nominal or adjectival lexical base as a verb; but others like des-, es-, in-, re-, less productive in verb formation, can either not change the grammatical category (activar ‘to activate’ → desactivar ‘to deactivate’, habilitar ‘to empower’ → inhabilitar ‘to disqualify’, fer ‘to make’ → refer ‘to remake’), or act as recategorizing prefixes (banc ‘bench’ → desbancar ‘to oust’, bocí ‘piece’→ esbocinar ‘to crumble’, fatu ‘fatuous’ → infatuar ‘to make conceited’, fresc ‘cool’ → refrescar ‘to cool’). Next to these hybrid prefixes, there are unstressed prefixes that never recategorize the roots with which they combine: dis-, bes-, per-, pre- (sort ‘luck’ → dissort ‘misfortune’, nét ‘grandson’→ besnét ‘great-grandson’, durar ‘to last’ → perdurar ‘to endure’, existir ‘to exist’→ preexistir ‘to pre-exist’). Some prefixes are open with regard to the categories of the bases with which they may combine, and others are more restrictive. The prefixes a-, en-, es- accept nominal and adjectival bases, while des- only admits verbal and nominal bases, in- combines with adjectival bases and only very rarely nominal ones. Trans- and co- are open prefixes as regards the bases they combine with. Exclusively recategorizing or partially recategorizing prefixes only form verbs, always belonging to the first conjugation when the base is nominal and to the third conjugation when the base is an adjective.

2646

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Some prefixes may become autonomous and even form a new lexical unit, e.g., mini-, super-, hiper- (mini < minifaldilla ‘miniskirt’, super < supermercat ‘supermarket’, ultra < ultraradical ‘ultraradical’, extra < extraordinary ‘unusual’).

4.1.1. Unstressed prefixes The possibilities for the recategorization of a lexical base by means of prefixes are very poor compared to those offered by suffixes. In prefixation, only the forms a- and en-, in all their allomorphs, partially re-, des-, es-, and occasionally in-, allow for the formation of verbs from nominal or adjectival bases. All other stressed and unstressed prefixes do not change the category of the words they combine with. Therefore they are given a predominantly semantic value. Recategorizing prefixes, all unstressed, are: a- (lleuger ‘light’ → alleugerir ‘to lighten’), en- (llit ‘bed’ → enllitar-se ‘to go to bed’), re- (bla ‘soft’ → reblanir ‘to soften’), des- (nata ‘cream’ → desnatar ‘to skim’), es- (llom ‘back’ → esllomar-se ‘to break one’s back’), in- (tòxic ‘toxic’ → intoxicar ‘to poison’). Non-recategorizing unstressed prefixes are: re- (fer ‘to make’ → refer ‘to remake’), des- (muntar ‘to assemble’ → desmuntar ‘to dismantle’), es- (cruixir ‘to creak’ → escruixir ‘to break’), in-/im-/ir-/il-/i- (adequat ‘appropriate’ → inadequat ‘inappropriate’, possible ‘possible’ → impossible ‘impossible’, regular ‘regular’ → irregular ‘irregular’, lògic ‘logical’ → il·lògic ‘illogical’, llegible ‘readable’ → illegible ‘unreadable’), a-/an- (simètric ‘symmetric’ → asimètric ‘asymmetric’, aeròbic ‘aerobic’ → anaeròbic ‘anaerobic’), a- (jeure ‘to lie’ → ajeure ‘to put to bed’), bes- (canviar ‘to change’ → bescanviar ‘to exchange’), dis- (conforme ‘satisfied’ → disconforme ‘dissatisfied’), con-/com-/cor-/col-/co- (fraternitzar → confraternitzar ‘to fraternize’, batre ‘to beat’ → combatre ‘to fight’, responsabilitat ‘responsibility’ → corresponsabilitat ‘co-responsibility’, lateral ‘lateral’ → col·lateral ‘collateral’, mare ‘mother’ → comare ‘godmother’), per- (mutar ‘to mutate’ → permutar ‘to swap’), pre- (cedir ‘to transfer’ → precedir ‘to precede’), trans- (atlàntic ‘Atlantic’ → transatlàntic ‘transatlantic’). The change in part of speech brought about by prefixes is very restricted: they only occur in verb formation from nominal (agrupar ‘to group’), adjectival (enfortir ‘to strengthen’) and adverbial bases (allunyar ‘to move away’). An analysis of neologisms in current Catalan shows the consolidation of prefixes with a new recategorizing value: anti- (brigada antidrogues ‘drug squad’ [anti [drugs]N]A), multi- (producte multiusos ‘multipurpose product’ [multi [usos]N]A). Most prefixes, both stressed and unstressed, are not restrictive as regards the grammatical selection of the base (retoc ‘retouching’, rebonic ‘very nice’) and match the category of this base (néixer ‘to be born’ → renéixer ‘to be reborn’, mar ‘sea’ → ultramar ‘overseas’) and its semantics, adding to the derived unit a situational, temporal, spatial, quantitative or repetitive value. The verb agrupar ‘to group’ is formed by the nominal base grup ‘group’ to which the prefix a- gives the verbal category. The noun besàvia ‘great-grandmother’ is formed by attaching the prefix bes- to the lexical base àvia ‘grandmother’; and the verb predir ‘to foretell’ is obtained by the preceding prefix pre- and the verb dir ‘to tell’.

146. Catalan

2647

4.1.2. Stressed prefixes All stressed prefixes in Catalan originate from prepositions and adverbs, mainly from Latin (ante-, circum-, semi-), but also from ancient Greek (anti-, arxi-, pseudo-). The prepositional and/or adverbial value of the prefix conserves this value in the words it forms. Stressed prefixes, all non-recategorizing prefixes, are: contra- (atacar ‘to attack’ → contraatacar ‘to counterattack’), entre- (cuixa ‘thigh’ → entrecuix ‘crotch’), inter- (canviar ‘to change’ → intercanviar ‘to exchange’), intra- (muscular ‘muscular’ → intramuscular ‘intramuscular’), sobre- (dosi ‘dose’ → sobredosi ‘overdose’), super- (home ‘man’ → superhome ‘superman’), supra- (renal ‘renal’ → suprarenal ‘suprarenal’), sota- (vent ‘wind’ → sotavent ‘leeward’), sub- (dividir ‘to divide’ → subdividir ‘to subdivide’), sots- (oficial ‘officer’ → sotsoficial ‘noncommissioned officer’), infra(humà ‘human’ → infrahumà ‘subhuman’), fora- (bord ‘board’ → forabord ‘outboard motor’), extra- (ordinari ‘common’ → extraordinari ‘unusual’), avant- (braç ‘arm’ → avantbraç ‘forearm’), ante- (posar ‘to put’ → anteposar ‘to put before’), circum- (navegar ‘to sail’ → circunnavegar ‘to circumnavigate’), ultra- (mar ‘sea’ → ultramar ‘overseas’), semi- (vocal ‘vowel’ → semivocal ‘semivowel’), vice- (rector ‘rector’ → vicerrector ‘vice-rector’), anti- (semita ‘Semitic’ → antisemita ‘anti-Semitic’), arxi- (fonema ‘phoneme’ → arxifonema ‘archiphoneme’), pseudo- (membrana ‘membrane’ → pseudomembrana ‘pseudomembrane’), ex- (diputat ‘deputy’ → exdiputat ‘ex-deputy’), post[pos-] (part ‘labor’ → postpart ‘puerperium’, posar ‘to put’ → posposar ‘to postpone’), pre- (cristià ‘Christian’ → pre-Christian), no- (violència ‘violence’ → no-violència ‘nonviolence’), menys- (prear ‘to be fond of’ → menysprear ‘to despise’), prop- (passat ‘last’ → proppassat ‘of last week’), quasi- (delicte ‘crime’ → quasidelicte ‘quasicrime’), ben- ‘well’ (parlat ‘spoken’ → benparlat ‘well-spoken’), mal- (pensat ‘thought’ → malpensat ‘nasty-minded’).

4.1.3. Neoclassical prefixation The boundaries between neoclassical and native prefixation are not easy to establish, as almost all Catalan prefixes are of Latin or Greek origin and are used with more or less frequency in new word-formation. Prefixes such as in-, sub-, inter-, or super- (immigrant ‘immigrant’, subconscient ‘subconscious’, interposar ‘to interpose’, supermercat ‘supermarket’) are Latin prefixes that have not evolved according to Catalan phonological rules as a Romance language, unlike their corresponding synonyms en-, sota-, entre- or sobre- (en- + garjola ‘prison’ → engarjolar ‘to jail’, sotaescriure ‘to subscribe’, sotstinent ‘second lieutenant’, llucar ‘to see’ → entrellucar ‘to make out’, sobreexcitat ‘overexcited’). However, not all the prefixes that Catalan has taken from Latin have a corresponding native language equivalent (circum-, intra-, extra-, proto-, per-, trans-, vice-, anti-, auto-, ultra, neo-, pro-, pseudo-, arxi-, bi-, hiper-, hipo-, infra-, macro-, micro-, mono-, multi-, pan-, poli-, tetra-, quasi-, tri-, semi-, etc.), but users still use them to form new words. It is for this reason that they have all been included in the section on prefixation. Other more specific cases of prefixes with a classical origin only appear in specialized terminologies (epi-: epifonema ‘epiphoneme’, exo-: exosfera ‘exosphere’, etc.).

2648

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

4.1.4. New prefixes, pseudoprefixes or prefixoids The so-called prefixoids or false prefixes are a special case of prefixation (Vallès 2007; Bernal 2010), whose origin is the truncation of a word. Some of the most frequent in the creation of new words are: ciber-, drogo-, eco-, euro-, homo-, narco-, petro-, publi-, tele- (ciberespai ‘cyberspace’, drogoaddicte ‘drug addict’, eurodiputat ‘member of the European Parliament’, narcotràfic ‘drug trafficking’, petrodòlar ‘petrodollar’, publireportatge ‘infomercial’, telemedicine ‘telemedicine’).

4.2. Suffixation On the basis of derivation with suffixes from nominal, verbal and adjectival bases, new words belonging to the main four word classes − nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs − can be formed. However, not all combinations are possible. With nominal bases (dent ‘tooth’, mà ‘hand’, fang ‘mud’) we can obtain nouns (dentista ‘dentist’), verbs (manejar ‘to use’) and adjectives (fangós ‘muddy’), but not adverbs. From verbal bases (cantar ‘to sing’, beure ‘to drink’, escanyar ‘to strangle’) nouns (cantaire ‘singer’), adjectives (bevible ‘drinkable’) and other verbs (escanyussar-se ‘to choke’) can be derived, but again not adverbs. Adjectival bases (brut ‘dirty’, groc ‘yellow’, dèbil ‘weak’, feliç ‘happy’) may derive nouns (brutícia ‘dirt’), adjectives (groguenc ‘yellowish’), verbs (debilitar ‘to weaken’) and adverbs (feliçment ‘happily’). Finally, through suffixation adverbial bases such as lluny ‘far’ can form adjectives (llunyà ‘distant’) and verbs (llunyejar ‘to be far away’), but not nouns or other adverbs. Suffixation processes in Catalan are presented below following the order of grammatical class. Within each process, phenomena are classified according to the grammatical category of the root in the same order. For each process the suffixes considered to be the most productive in Catalan are listed.

4.2.1. Noun formation By means of suffixation nouns may be derived from nominal, adjectival and verbal bases, but not from adverbial bases. Denominal nouns In noun formation via suffixation from nominal bases, two processes must be distinguished, derivation with evaluative suffixes and derivation with non-evaluative suffixes. The first does not have recategorizing properties, the latter, however, does. This difference brings about an important consequence: evaluative suffixes are attached to a lexical base which maintains all its grammatical features and basic semantics. The word resulting from this combination cannot be considered to be altogether a new word, and this is the reason why lexicographers do not systematically include them in dictionaries. By contrast, with non-evaluative suffixes new lexical units are formed from bases which give up their syntactic features and take on those of the suffix, maintaining their semantic

146. Catalan

2649

properties in a subordinate position (ferro ‘iron’ → ferrer ‘blacksmith’; mainada ‘kids’ → mainadera ‘nanny’). Let us first turn to derivation with e v a l u a t i v e suffixes. The words maneta ‘little hand’ and ditet ‘little finger’ have been formed on the bases mà ‘hand’ and dit ‘finger’ respectively by adding an evaluative suffix expressing the property ‘small’. The words manassa ‘big hand’ and ditot ‘big finger’, based on mà ‘hand’ and dit ‘finger’, have been given an evaluative suffix indicating the property ‘big’. The same happens with manota and ditarro, in which the suffix supplies an additional pejorative value. The stems mà and dit conserve all their grammatical and semantic values. On the contrary, we cannot say the same for manejar ‘to use’ and ditejar ‘to key’, in which the suffix changes the grammatical class and imposes its semantics upon the base. Evaluative suffixes are very versatile, in the sense that they can express different values, sometimes attaining even the inverse semantic pole from which they originated, as when diminutives acquire an intensive meaning. The concrete meaning depends on the pragmatic conditions of the statement, on conditions that manifest themselves grammatically (pronunciation, intonation) or paralinguistically (gesticulation). According to Fabra (1956: 138) the most important evaluative suffixes are: -arro/-arra, -às/-assa, -et/-eta, -ell/-ella, -í/-ina, -ic/-ica, -ill/-illa, -im, -ó/-ona, -ol/-ola, -ot/-ota. Some of these suffixes are hardly productive in word-formation nowadays. Many of them are fossilized forms which subsist in certain words, but no speaker uses them spontaneously to shade the meaning of the words of his lexicon: corda ‘rope’ → cordill ‘string’, taula ‘table’ → taulell ‘counter’, mantell ‘cloak’ → mantellina ‘mantilla’, gerd ‘raspberry’ → gerdó ‘id.’, sabata ‘shoe’ → sabatilla ‘slipper’, llenç ‘cloth’ → llençol ‘sheet’. In many of these cases evaluative suffixes have lost their original value and give the word in which they appear a meaning completely different from that of the base. Lexicalization processes also occur among the evaluative suffixes in current use: camisa ‘shirt’ → camiseta ‘undershirt’, cara ‘face’ → careta ‘mask’, ungla ‘nail’ → unglot ‘hoof’, pi ‘pine’→ pinassa ‘pine needles’. We now proceed to derived nouns with n o n - e v a l u a t i v e suffixes. Most of the suffixes available in Catalan allow the formation of new words when combined with a stem. Among all the semantic categories expressed by suffixes the following may be regarded as the most productive: − a g e n t (trade or profession): -er/-era, -aire, ista, -à/-ana (fusta ‘wood’ → fuster ‘carpenter’, drap ‘dishtowel’ → drapaire ‘junkman’, moda ‘fashion’ → modista ‘dressmaker’, cirurgia ‘surgery’ → cirurgià ‘surgeon’); − f o l l o w e r , a d e p t : -ista (Buda → budista ‘Buddhist’); − i n s t r u m e n t : -er, -al, -era (cendra ‘ash’ → cendrer ‘ashtray’, braç ‘arm’ → braçal ‘armband’, sucre ‘sugar’ → sucrera ‘sugar bowl’); − l o c a t i o n : -er, -eria (gallina ‘hen’ → galliner ‘henhouse’, consell ‘advise’→ conselleria ‘department’); − j u r i s d i c t i o n , t e r r i t o r y : -at (bisbe ‘bishop’ → bisbat ‘bishopric’); − c o l l e c t i o n , s e t : -eda, -ar, -am, -ari, -ada, -alla, -atge, -eria, -at (pi ‘pine’ → pineda ‘pine forest’, blat ‘wheat’ → bladar ‘wheat field’, fusta ‘wood’ → fustam ‘woodwork’, bèstia ‘beast’ → bestiari ‘bestiary’, gent ‘people’ → gentada ‘crowd’, jove ‘young’ → jovenalla ‘gang’, branca ‘branch’ → brancatge ‘branches’, cristall ‘glass’ → cristalleria ‘glassware’, veí ‘neighbour’→ veïnat ‘neighbourhood’);

2650

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

− o r i g i n : -à/-ana, -í/-ina, -ès/-esa, -enc/-enca (Mèxic → mexicà ‘Mexican’, Mallorca → mallorquí ‘Majorcan’, Berlín → berlinès ‘Berliner’, Reus → reusenc ‘from Reus’); − t r e e , p l a n t : -er, -era (castanya ‘chestnut’→ castanyer ‘chestnut tree’, espàrrec → esparreguera ‘asparagus’); − b l o w : -ada (ganivet ‘knife’ → ganivetada ‘stab’); − c o n t e n t s : -ada, -at (cullera ‘spoon’ → cullerada ‘spoonful’, grapa ‘hand’ → grapat ‘handful’); − t i m e l a p s e , m e a s u r e : -ada (any ‘year’ → anyada ‘period’, llarg ‘long’ → llargada ‘length’); − a c t , p e r f o r m a n c e : -ada (ruc ‘stupid’ → rucada ‘piece of nonsense’, pallasso ‘clown’ → pallassada ‘clowning around’); − d o c t r i n e : -isme (Darwin → darwinisme ‘Darwinism’). Deadjectival nouns In Catalan nouns derived from qualifying adjectives mostly are of two types, quality nouns and nouns in -isme. Abstract nouns indicating quality take one of the following suffixes: -esa, -ícia, -or, -ura, -ia, -eria, -ària, -ió, -itud/-ud, -itat/-etat/-edat/-tat/-dat: pobre ‘poor’ → pobresa ‘poverty’, brut ‘dirty’ → brutícia ‘dirt’, fosc ‘dark’ → foscor ‘darkness’, entremaliat ‘naughty’ → entremaliadura ‘prank’, gelós ‘jealous’ → gelosia ‘jealousy’, ximple ‘silly’ → ximpleria ‘silly thing’, gran ‘big, large’ → grandària ‘size’, ample ‘wide’ → amplada ‘width’, perfecte ‘perfect’ → perfecció ‘perfection’, pulcre ‘tidy’ → pulcritud ‘tidiness’, digne ‘honorable’ → dignitat ‘dignity’. Nouns in -isme, which designate movements or doctrines, could be considered to be a semantic sideline of the first group: social ‘social’ → socialisme ‘socialism’. The lack of semantic diversity occurring in the nominalization of adjectives generates a considerable amount of synonymy; however, although any combination is possible, the bases on which the suffixes mentioned previously operate do not combine with all the suffixes: they tend to select one over the rest, and even reject some for morpho-phonological reasons. The suffixes forming quality nouns have relatively strict combinatorial restrictions. For example, -or is the most productive suffix for deverbal adjectives with the derivational morpheme -nt (-ant, -ent), deriving historically from a present participle (picant ‘hot’ → picantor ‘burning’, coent ‘itchy’ → coentor ‘itch’, lluent ‘shiny’ → lluentor ‘shine’). Adjectival roots ending in unstressed vowels (vari ‘several’, sobri ‘sober’, vacu ‘vacuous’) preferably select the suffix -itat in its form -etat or -itat, depending on whether they end with anterior or posterior vowels: varietat ‘variety’, sobrietat ‘sobriety’, vacuïtat ‘vacuity’, ingenuïtat ‘naivety’. Adjectives ending in -ble are nominalized exclusively through the suffix -itat: amable ‘kind’ → amabilitat ‘kindness’, probable ‘probable’ → probabilitat ‘probability’. One of the features to be highlighted in the combination of nominalizing suffixes and adjectival lexemes is the allomorphy occurring in certain forms of the suffix. The suffix -itud appears in the variants -itud and -ud (lent ‘slow’ → lentitud ‘slowness’, quiet ‘still’ → quietud ‘stillness’), and the suffix -itat is realized through the variants -itat − in some dialects -idat −, -edat (cast ‘chaste’ → castedat ‘chastity’), -etat (vari ‘several’ → varietat ‘variety’), -tat (lleial ‘loyal’ → lleialtat ‘loyalty’) and -dat (mal ‘evil’ → maldat ‘evilness’).

146. Catalan

2651

Deverbal nouns For the formation of suffixed words from verbal bases Catalan has a wide range of suffixes, expressing the following semantic categories: − a c t i o n , r e s u l t (see Bernal and DeCesaris 2006), expressed by -ment, -ció, -nça, -dera, -dura, -dures, -all, -alla, -alles, -or, -atge, -dissa, -im, -era, -et: nomenar ‘to appoint’ → nomenament ‘appointment’, aprovar ‘to approve’ → aprovació ‘approval’, venjar ‘to avenge’ → venjança ‘revenge’, bullir ‘to boil’ → bullidera ‘boiling’, ferir-se ‘to injure oneself’ → feridura ‘apoplexy’, triar ‘to choose’ → triadures ‘leftovers’, escampar ‘to spill’ → escampall ‘scattering’, trobar ‘to find’ → troballa ‘find’, deixar ‘to let’ → deixalles ‘scraps’, inflar ‘to inflate’ → inflor ‘swelling’, marcar ‘to mark’ → marcatge ‘marking’, córrer ‘to run’ → corredissa ‘run-up’, socarrar ‘to scorch’ → socarrim ‘scorching’, ballar ‘to dance’ → ballera ‘feeling like dancing’, xiular ‘to whistle’ → xiulet ‘whistle’. These nouns may give rise to common nouns by lexicalization; this occurs preferably with -dura (armadura ‘armor’), -et (trabuquet ‘catapult’), -all (fregall ‘scourer’), -alles (deixalles ‘scraps’), -dures (llimadures ‘filing’); − o b j e c t , i n s t r u m e n t , expressed by -dor, -all, -et: gronxar ‘to swing’ → gronxador ‘swing’, fregar ‘to wash’ → fregall ‘scourer’, rasclar ‘to rake’ → rasclet ‘rake’; − l o c a t i o n , expressed by -dor, -tori, -all: menjar ‘to eat’ → menjador ‘dining room’, observar ‘to observe’ → observatori ‘observatory’, amagar ‘to hide’ → amagatall ‘hideout’. These suffixes are restricted in their combinatorial possibilities. For example, if we analyze the combinatory preferences of nouns formed by the suffixes -ment, -ció, -(a/e)nça, we observe that the conjugation class of the verb to a certain extent imposes conditions on the selection of the suffix form. Therefore, while the suffix -ció is rarely selected by a verb in the second conjugation, the suffix -nça is not selected by verbs of the third conjugation, except for very specific cases (tenir ‘to have’ → tinença ‘possession’, avenir-se ‘to agree’ → avinença ‘agreement’). On the contrary, the suffix -ment, which is the most productive one, is compatible with roots of any of the conjugations: ensenyar ‘to teach’ → ensenyament ‘teaching’, néixer ‘to be born’ → naixença ‘birth’, patir ‘to suffer’ → patiment ‘suffering’. A similar restriction appears in the combination of suffixes such as -all, -dera, -era, -dissa, -dura, -dures, -alla, -alles, -et, -atge, -or. In fact these suffixes combine exclusively with verbs of the first conjugation: fregar ‘to wash’ → fregall ‘scourer’, parlar ‘to talk’ → parlera ‘feeling like talking’, xiular ‘to whistle’ → xiuladissa ‘whistling’, anar ‘to go’ → anadura ‘journey’, serrar ‘to saw’ → serradures ‘sawdust’, endevinar ‘to guess’ → endevinalla ‘riddle’, sobrar ‘to be left over’ → sobralles ‘leftovers’, bolcar ‘to tip’ → bolquet ‘wheelbarrow’, heretar ‘to inherit’ → heretatge ‘estate’, escalfar ‘to heat’ → escalfor ‘heat’.

4.2.2. Adjective formation Catalan has different suffixes to form adjectives from nominal, verbal, adjectival and also, albeit rarely, adverbial lexical bases.

2652

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Denominal adjectives The most productive suffixes, organized semantically, are the following: − r e l a t i o n a l adjectives, formed by -er/-era, -ar, -ari/-ària, -ífic/-ífica, -oide, -i/-ia (unstressed): mentida ‘lie’ → mentider ‘lying’, cercle ‘circle’ → circular ‘circular’, complement ‘complement’ → complementari ‘complementary’, ciència ‘science’ → científic ‘scientific’, ou ‘egg’ → ovoide ‘ovoid’, os ‘bone’ → ossi ‘bone’; and also -à/-ana, -í/-ina, -enc/-enca, -ès/-esa (re-used as gentilic words): ciutat ‘city’ → ciutadà ‘citizen’, mar ‘sea’ → marí ‘marine’, estiu ‘summer’ → estiuenc ‘summery’, muntanya ‘mountain’ → muntanyès ‘highlander’; − p o s s e s s i v e adjectives, formed by -ós/-osa, -at/-ada, -ut/-uda: neguit ‘anxiety’ → neguitós ‘eager’, piga ‘freckle’ → pigat ‘freckly’, molsa ‘moss’ → molsut ‘fleshy’. − s i m i l a t i v e adjectives (adjectives of resemblance), formed by -esc/-esca, -ívol/-ívola, -al: caricatura ‘caricature’ → caricaturesc ‘exaggerated’, pagès ‘peasant’ → pagesívol ‘peasant-like’, geni ‘genius’ → genial ‘brilliant’. The trend in these cases is to combine with animate bases. − d i s p o s i t i o n a l adjectives with the meaning ‘supporting x’, formed by -ià/-iana: Fabra → fabrià ‘Fabrian’, Voltaire → voltairià ‘Voltairian’. Not all of the suffixes above are compatible with all bases due to semantic reasons. In some cases this incompatiblity is categorical; in others, it is more a trend than an actual incompatibility. For example, the suffix -ià/-iana is only selected by personal proper names (Wagner → wagnerià ‘Wagnerian’, Darwin → darwinià ‘Darwinian’) and does not accept other types of stems, while the suffix -ada tends to be attached only to stems associated with living beings (animal ‘animal’ → animalada ‘silly thing’, pallasso ‘clown’ → pallassada ‘tomfoolery’). A group of suffixes which deserves special mention are g e n t i l i c s , which can be used both as nouns and as adjectives. The nominal bases with which these suffixes combine to form adjectives meaning ‘belonging to x’ are place names in the broad sense, expressed by proper names or common nouns. The semantic result of the combination is either a gentilic strictly speaking, when the locative nominal root is a proper name (Barcelona → barceloní ‘from Barcelona’, Itàlia → italià ‘Italian’, Londres → londinenc ‘Londoner’, França → francès ‘French’), or an approximate gentilic when the root is a common noun (bosc ‘wood’ → boscà, illa ‘island’ → illenc). Deadjectival adjectives Suffixation may change or not change the word class of the base in the derivation process. Among the cases in which the category does not change we find evaluative suffixes applied to adjectives corresponding formally to those operating on nouns, although in the case of the adjectives these have a qualitative (positive/negative) and quantitative character. The boundary between evaluative and non-evaluative suffixes is not always clearcut. For example, the suffixes in the words petitet (← petit ‘small’), bonicoi (← bonic ‘beautiful’), amplot (← ample ‘wide’) are clearly evaluative. It is not as easy to decide whether the suffixes are evaluative or not in words such as facilíssim ‘very easy’ or celebèrrim ‘very famous’, formed with the quantitative suffixes -íssim and -èrrim attached to adjectival stems. These formations seem close to those formed with an evalua-

146. Catalan

2653

tive suffix, but the situation is less clear with adjectives such as groguenc ‘yellowish’, blavós ‘bluish’, malaltís ‘unhealthy’ (← malalt ‘sick’). Deverbal adjectives In Catalan adjectives are frequently found that are derived from verbs by means of suffixes. The most productive suffixes in this process are the following: − − − − − − − − − −

-aire: xerrar ‘to chat’ → xerraire ‘talkative’; -ble: lloar ‘to praise’ → lloable ‘praiseworthy’; -dís/-dissa: espantar ‘to frighten’ → espantadís ‘nervous’; -dor/-dora: prometre ‘to promise’ → prometedor ‘promising’, aclaparar ‘to overwhelm’ → aclaparador ‘overwhelming’; llegir ‘to read’ → llegidor ‘readable’; -er/-era: plorar ‘to cry’ → ploraner ‘tearful’; -iu/-iva: afirmar ‘to assert’ → afirmatiu ‘affirmative’, agredir ‘to attack’ → agressiu ‘aggressive’; -ívol/-ivola: defensar ‘to defend’ → defensívol ‘defensible’; -(a/e)nt: picar ‘to be hot’ → picant ‘hot’, absorbir ‘to absorb’ → absorbent ‘absorbent’; -ós/-osa: esgarrifar ‘to scare’ → esgarrifós ‘scary’; -tori/-tòria: depilar ‘to wax, shave’ → depilatori ‘depilatory’.

Most of these suffixes are not exclusive to adjective formation, nor are they restricted to the combination with verbal bases. For example, -aire forms nouns derived from nouns (cadira ‘chair’ → cadiraire ‘chair-maker’) and nouns derived from verbs (rondinar ‘to grumble’ → rondinaire ‘grouchy’); -er/-era forms nouns derived from nouns (ferro ‘iron’ → ferrer ‘blacksmith’) and adjectives derived from nouns (frontera ‘border’ → fronterer ‘border-’); -(a/e)nt forms nouns derived from verbs (caminar ‘to walk’ → caminant ‘walker’); -ós/-osa forms adjectives derived from nouns (pluja ‘rain’ → plujós ‘rainy’) and adjectives derived from adjectives (vermell ‘red’ → vermellós ‘reddish’). Suffixes forming deverbal adjectives can be classified into two major groups taking into account their semantics, partially inherited from the aspectual features of the verbal base with which they combine. On the one hand, we can distinguish the suffixes forming derivatives with an a c t i v e value, which often also add the feature ‘habitual’ (-ós/-osa, -(a/e)nt, -dor/-dora, -er/-era, -aire, -tori/-tòria, -iu/-iva): picant ‘spicy’, ostensiu ‘ostentatious’, somiador ‘dreamy’, exhibitori ‘exhibiting’. On the other hand, there are suffixes forming derivatives with a p a s s i v e value: -ble, -dor/-dora, -ívol/-ívola, -dís/-dissa (llegidor ‘legible’, demostrable ‘demonstrable’, agafadís ‘catchable’). Both types accept a large variety of lexical verbal base forms, both from a morphological and a syntactic point of view. Thus, through the adjunction of the aforementioned suffixes, adjectives may be derived from verbs in all conjugations: α) first conjugation: acumular ‘to accumulate’ → acumulatiu ‘cumulative’, programar ‘to schedule’ → programador ‘programmer’; β) second conjugation: néixer ‘to be born’ → naixent ‘rising, new’, perdre ‘to loose’ → perdedor ‘looser’; γ) third conjugation: absorbir ‘to absorb’ → absorbent ‘absorbent’, esmunyir-se ‘to slip away’ → esmunyedís ‘slippery’. The bases can also be of different aspectual types: α) perfective verbs: canviar ‘to change’ → canviable ‘changeable’, obrir ‘to open’ → obridor ‘opening’; β) imperfective verbs: dominar ‘to control’ → dominable ‘controllable’, excel·lir ‘to excel’ → excel·lent ‘excellent’.

2654

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

With this kind of adjectives we can observe a trend towards Latinate forms (veure ‘to see’ → visible ‘visible’, elegir ‘to choose, elect’ → electiu ‘elective’, agredir ‘to attack’ → agressiu ‘aggressive’), which sometimes co-occur with native native forms (llegidor ‘readable’ vs. lector ‘reading’, oient ‘listening’ vs. audible ‘audible’). Deadverbial adjectives The possibility of forming adjectives through derivation from an adverbial base is no longer productive. It is restricted to a few lexicalized cases: proper ‘close’, llunyà ‘far’, or forà ‘foreign’.

4.2.3. Verb formation The suffixes -ej(ar), -itz(ar), -ific(ar), -eg(ar) and -it(ar) form verbs from stems belonging to different classes of words. Of these suffixes, the most frequent and representative (-ej(ar), -itz(ar) and -ific(ar)) combine with both nominal and adjectival bases, and will be treated separately in this article. The less productive (-eg(ar), -it(ar)), however, only combine with nominal (the former) and with adjectival bases (the latter). Denominal verbs Verbs formed from the combination of the suffixes -ej(ar), -itz(ar), -ific(ar) and -eg(ar) with a nominal base can be of different types depending on the suffix they select: they may be intransitive or transitive, and within the transitive, causative or noncausative. Of all the verbalizing suffixes the -ej(ar) suffix is the most complex and diversified, not only because it allows for the formation of verbs belonging to all the groups described, but also because of its high degree of frequency and availability. Bernal (1997) supplies data on the frequency of verbalizing suffixes from 728 entries of derived suffixed verbs in the Hiperdiccionari (Enciclopèdia Catalana 1995): the suffix -ej(ar) represents 58 %, -itz(ar) 30.7 %, and -ific(ar) 10 %. The suffixes -eg(ar) and -it(ar) are practically non-existent. By attaching the suffix -ej(ar) to nominal bases from different semantic classes the following types of verbs can be formed: α) intransitive verbs (fanfarró ‘boastful’ → fanfarronejar ‘to boast’); β) transitive non-causative verbs (petó ‘kiss’ → petonejar ‘to kiss’); γ) causative verbs (angúnia ‘distress’ → anguniejar ‘to distress’); δ) impersonal verbs (vent ‘wind’ → ventejar ‘to be windy’). In each of these four groups of verbs we observe how the suffix -ej(ar) selects stems belonging to different semantic classes (Bernal 1997: 43−48), such as body parts, instruments, atmospheric phenomena, states, time, location, material, containers, sounds and onomatopoeias, among others. The resulting verbs can express: α) weather events (ventejar ‘to be windy’, clarejar ‘to dawn’); β) iteration or movement (bastonejar ‘to hit’, ditejar ‘to key’); γ) cause (airejar ‘to air’, arquejar ‘to raise’); δ) behaviour (feinejar ‘to work’, fanfarronejar ‘to boast’). The suffix -itz(ar) may also be used to form intransitive and transitive verbs, the latter often causative: rivalitzar ‘to rival’, simpatitzar ‘to sympathize’; cicatritzar ‘to heal’. The suffix -ific(ar) attached to nominal bases produces verbs that are nearly always transitive, and can be causative or non-causative. Many of these verbs are formed on

146. Catalan

2655

classical roots and often produce verbs used in specialized fields: momificar ‘to mommify’, modificar ‘to modify’; escenificar ‘to stage’, qualificar ‘to qualify’. Finally the suffix -eg(ar), totally unproductive, may appear in combination with the prefixes a-, en-, es- (amuntegar ‘to pile up’; empantanegar ‘to swamp’, estossegar ‘to cough’). The combination of a base with a certain verbalizing suffix does not present regularities, although we have observed some tendencies. For example, in forming transitive verbs of action with an instrument (‘to hit with an instrument, move an instrument’, etc.) the trend is to use the suffix -ej(ar): fuet → fuetejar ‘to whip’. The same happens when forming intransitive verbs meaning ‘to move a part of the body’ (parpella ‘eyelid’ → parpellejar ‘to blink’), intransitive verbs that mean ‘to behave (oneself) in a particular way’ (senyor ‘master, lord’ → senyorejar ‘to dominate’), or to indicate that certain meteorological phenomena occur (fosc ‘dark’ → fosquejar ‘to get dark’). However, to express with a causative verb that something or somebody transforms into something else (the result), the most frequent suffix is -ific(ar), followed at a good distance by -itz(ar): dulcificar ‘to mellow’, suavitzar ‘to soften’. Deadjectival verbs Verb formation from adjectives by means of suffixation shares almost the same resources as the formation of verbs from nominal bases. The suffixes available in Catalan are basically the same: -ej(ar), -itz(ar), -ific(ar), followed at a great distance by the suffix -it(ar), only forming verbs from adjectival bases. The main characteristics of this process, as well as the resources used, also coincide with those of verbal derivation from nouns. By combining an adjectival base with any of the suffixes -ej(ar), -itz(ar) and -ific(ar) we may obtain transitive verbs with a causative value and intransitive verbs (in this case with the exception of the suffix -ific(ar)): just ‘fair’ → justificar ‘to justify’, agut ‘sharp’ → aguditzar ‘to heighten’, blanc ‘white’ → blanquejar ‘to bleach’, coix ‘lame’ → coixejar ‘to limp’, cristal·lí ‘crystal’ → cristal·litzar ‘to crystallize’. The suffix -it(ar) is currently not productive in Catalan. It is found in very common and frequent verbs (debilitar ‘to weaken’, facilitar ‘to make easier’, capacitar ‘to prepare’) and combines with adjectival bases, all ending in vowel + lateral consonant (hàbil ‘skilled’, fàcil ‘easy’, dèbil ‘weak’, àgil ‘agile’). Deverbal verbs A large number of verbs of the first conjugation may be combined with intensive suffixes. Of these verbal suffixes, not all are morphemic synchronically, although they may have been originally. These suffixes are, among others, -ol- (granissar ‘to hail’ → granissolar ‘to hail slightly’), -ot- (parlar ‘to talk’ → parlotejar ‘to prattle’), -in- (aixafar ‘to squash’ → aixafinar ‘to wrinkle’), -iss- (capir → capissar ‘to understand’), -uss(cantar ‘to sing’ → cantussar ‘to hum’). Other forms of suffixes, however, add semantic features (intensive or iterative) to the verbs to which they are attached, like -ass- (allargar ‘to lengthen’ → allargassar ‘to stretch’), -uc- (menjar ‘to eat’ → menjucar ‘to eat without appetite’), or -isc- (ploure ‘to rain’ → ploviscar ‘to drizzle’). Deadverbial verbs Verb formation through suffixation from adverbial bases is a resource that has very low productivity in Catalan and only occurs with the suffix -ej(ar): poc ‘little, not much’ → poquejar ‘to be scarce’. Verbs formed by means of this process are all intransitive.

2656

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

4.2.4. Adverb formation Adverb formation by means of derivation is not productive apart from an adjectival base and the suffix -ment. The base of these adverbs must be realized in the feminine form: lent ‘slow’ → lentament ‘slowly’, but not all adjectives may form adverbs with the suffix -ment (alat ‘winged’ → *aladament, blanc ‘white’ → *blancament, coent ‘spicy’ → *coentament, etc.). Those that do, do not always express manner, but also ‘from an X point of view’, ‘in the X period’, etc. (morfològicament ‘morphologically’, efectivament ‘really’, actualment ‘nowadays’).

4.2.5. Affix chains In Catalan the most common pattern in derived word-formation with a suffix consists in attaching a suffix to a simple stem (sabata ‘shoe’ → sabateria ‘shoeshop’, vermell ‘red’ → vermellós ‘reddish’). However, in addition to primary suffixed words, there are also derivatives based on suffixed bases (matèria ‘matter’ → material ‘material’ → materialitzar ‘to materialize’). The patterns of secondary derivation are quite restrictive, as not all lexemes formed by suffixation allow for a subsequent combination with another suffix: ensenyar ‘to teach’ → ensenyament ‘teaching’ → *ensenyamentar, fruita ‘fruit’ → fruiter ‘fruit tree’ → *fruiterós. The most frequent patterns of successive derivation are the following: − N-N-N: porta ‘door’ → porter ‘doorman’ → porteria ‘lodge’; − N-V-N: hospital ‘hospital’ → hospitalitzar ‘to hospitalize’ → hospitalització ‘hospitalization’; − N-A-N: ciutat ‘city’ → ciutadà ‘of the city, state’ → ciutadania ‘citizenship’; − N-A-V: nació ‘nation’ → nacional ‘national’ → nacionalitzar ‘to naturalize’. Beyond these cases, evaluative suffixes can be added to complex bases, but in many instances these are highly lexicalized: only the addition of evaluative suffixes to simple or complex bases is productive. There are many cases of lexicalization of derived words with an evaluative formant that has lost its original value: maduixa ‘strawberry’ → maduixot ‘a variety of strawberry’, corbata ‘tie’ → corbatí ‘bow tie’, braç ‘arm’ → braçal ‘armband’ → braçalet ‘bracelet’. The combination of prefixes is even more restricted than that of suffixes. The most frequent case is that of words with only one prefix (seguir ‘to follow’ → perseguir ‘to chase’, dur ‘hard’ → endurir ‘to harden’), except for certain combinations resulting in verbs of action: des- and en- or a- (butxaca ‘pocket’ → embutxacar ‘to pocket’ → desembutxacar ‘to unpack’). Intensive prefixes have a wider range of combination: reempaquetar ‘to pack again’ (Grossmann 1994). The combination of prefixes and suffixes is more complex and varied. We must not mix up the successive combination of prefixes and suffixes on an original lexical base (presó ‘jail’ → empresonar ‘to jail’ → desempresonar ‘to release’) with the simultaneous combination of prefix and suffix on one and the same base, a phenomenon known as parasynthesis (bony ‘bulk’ → abonyegar ‘to dent’, vitamina ‘vitamin’ → avitaminosi ‘vitamin defficency’). In fact, any word derived with a suffix accepts the combination

146. Catalan

2657

with certain prefixes, as long as the semantics is not contradictory. As for exclusively unstressed prefixes, it would seem that the only ones allowing the combination with previously suffixed lexemes are in-, des-, re-, and in some cases con-: igual ‘equal’ → igualtat ‘equality’ → desigualtat ‘inequality’.

4.2.6. Neoclassical suffixation As in prefixation, there are words in Catalan with Latin and ancient Greek suffixes which have entered the language as complex loanwords. However, some of these suffixes appear only in the formation of scientific and technical terms: -aci (cetaci ‘cetacean’), -asa (amilasa ‘amylase’), -asi (litiasi ‘lithiasis’), -cle (diverticle ‘diverticulum’), -cul/-cula (tubèrcul ‘tubercule’), -ència (fosforescència ‘phosphorescence’), -ent (displicent ‘indifferent’), -id (fosfàtid), -il (senil ‘senile’), -ita (cuprite ‘cuprite’), -itis (cistitis ‘cystitis’), -ó (protó ‘proton’), -ol (metanol ‘methanol’), -ona (neurona ‘neuron’), -osi (trombosi ‘thrombosis’), -tró (electro ‘electron’), -ula (pustule ‘pustule’).

5. Conversion Conversion or zero derivation is one of the processes of word-formation available in Catalan, although it is not very productive. In some Catalan grammars, such as the one by Badia (1962: 309), conversion is called “habilitation” and considered to be a semantic, not a morphological process. The possibilities of creating new words or of obtaining new uses without the attachment of affixes can be grouped into four types: a) morphological processes leading to a new word-formation by conversion or zero derivation, b) semantic processes, c) fixation processes of lexemes with different categories to the original (lexicalization), and d) the possibility of using words from one category syntactically as being of another. The most representative cases of conversion are the morphological processes, which in Catalan comprise three cases: a) denominative verbs like sal ‘salt’ → salar ‘to salt’; b) deadjectival verbs: alegre ‘happy’ → alegrar ‘to make happy’; c) deverbal nouns: rebutjar ‘to reject’ → rebuig ‘rejection’. Also considered to be cases of conversion are lexicalized forms of the verb paradigm (infinitive: esmorzar ‘breakfast’, past participle: brodat ‘embroidery’, present participle: representant ‘manager’), nouns formed from adjectives via ellipsis (un (cigar) havà ‘an Havana cigar’), derivatives ambiguous between adjectives and nouns (el litoral barceloní ‘the coast of Barcelona’ vs. la llengua dels barcelonins ‘the language of the people from Barcelona’), and syntactical uses allowing to use an adjective as a noun (despertador ‘waking up (present participle, tr.)’ > ‘alarm clock’, desodorant ‘removing smells’ > ‘deodorant’, imperdible ‘unlosable’ > ‘safety pin’), a noun as an adjective (paraula clau ‘key word’, cèl·lula mare ‘stem cell’) and an adjective as an adverb (caminar lent ‘to walk slowly’, parlar fort ‘to speak up’).

2658

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

6. Reduplication In Catalan reduplication is very marginal. It is a morphological process with a phonological and prosodic base, consisting in the repetition of one same element with possible vowel or consonant variations. The elements taking part in reduplication may not correspond to lexical bases, or to morphemes currently being used in the language. All words formed by reduplication comprise onomatopoeias and expressive elements: non-non ‘lullaby’, rau-rau ‘feeling of suspicion’, puput ‘hoopoe’; xino-xano ‘step by step’, zigazaga ‘zigzag’; patapam ‘bang’, catacrac ‘crack’. Through reduplication in Catalan we can form nouns (xip-xap ‘splash’, nyigo-nyigo ‘droning’) and adverbs (nyigui-nyogui ‘second-rate’, bitllo-bitllo ‘cash’).

7. Truncation processes 7.1. Blending New words can also be created by combining truncated elements from different lexical units through blending. Blending consists in the elision of one or more segments of one or two words to form new nouns (aparthotel ‘aparthotel’, infopista ‘info highway’). The rare adjectives formed by blending are related to previous nominal blends, constituting the lexical base, with the attachment of an adjectivizing suffix (glocal [global + local] ‘glocal’, infocomercial ‘infomercial’). Verbs formed by blending are even rarer. Blends may have two types of structure, depending on the number or truncated elements. There are blends with two truncated elements (informàtica ‘computer science’ ← informació ‘information’ + automàtica ‘automatic’) and others with only one truncated element (publireportatge ‘infomercial’ ← publicitat ‘advertising’ + reportatge ‘report’). Blends of the first type will have different structures depending on the elided segment in the truncation: a) initial segment of the first word + final segment of the second word (animàtica ‘animatics’ ← animació ‘animation’ + automàtica ‘automatic’), b) initial segment of the first word + initial segment of the second word (porexpan ‘expanded polystyrene’ ← poliestirè ‘polystyrene’ + expandit ‘expanded’), c) initial segment of the first word + whole of the second word (aparthotel ‘aparthotel’ ← apartament ‘apartment’ + hotel ‘hotel’), and very seldom d) whole first word + final segment of the second word (gaicelona ‘gay Barcelona’ ← Barcelona ‘Barcelona’ + gai ‘gay’) and first word in its whole and initial segment of the second (aiguagim ‘aquagym’: aigua ‘water’ + gimnàstica ‘gymnastics’).

7.2. Acronymy, clipping and abbreviation Acronymy, clipping and abbreviation, like blending, are truncation processes. Acronymy is the truncation of lexemes in a phrase, each of which is reduced to a letter or a syllable (Estats Units d’Amèrica ‘United States of America’ → EUA ‘USA’, Institut Català del

146. Catalan

2659

Vi ‘Catalan Institute of Wine’ → Incavi). Acronyms formed by the initial letters of the words may be read as words when they correspond to syllabic structures in Catalan (UNESCO [unésko]) or pronouncing each of the letters (Partit Socialista de Catalunya: PSC [pe esa sé]), ONG ‘NGO’ [ɔ enə gé]. Graphically acronyms may combine capital and lower case words (TermNet ← Terminology Net). Unlike blending and acronymy, though, clipping and abbreviation happen in the strict margins of a monolexical word and never within a combination of words. Linguistic morphology leaves aside cases of abbreviation, as they are not spontaneous morphological processes and are artificially created to ensure a uniform graphic form internationally or within a linguistic community. Because of their role, abbreviations are closer to symbols than to words. Cases of clipping are not very frequent in Catalan and are almost non-existent in formal written discourse. They appear mainly in oral informal registers. Most cases of clipping in common words normally have two syllables (col·le ‘school’, profe ‘teacher’, bici ‘bike’, mani ‘demonstration’); some even three (diapo ‘slide’). The only productive case of clipping is that of hypocoristic uses of personal proper names: Quim (Joaquim), Juli (Julià), Marga (Margarida), Tere (Teresa); Rat (Montserrat), Bert (Albert). Words formed by truncation with the attachment of the suffix -ata, in a very informal register ([Ferrocarrils [de la Generalitat de Catalunya] → ferrocates ‘Catalan Government Railway’, [guàrdia de] seguretat ‘security guard’ → segurata) constitute a group apart.

8. References Badia, Antoni M. 1962 Gramática catalana. 2 Vol. Madrid: Gredos. Bayà, M. Rosa 1997 La prefixació intensiva en català. Estudi semanticoformal i aplicació lexicográfica. MA thesis, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Bernal, Elisenda 1997 Els sufixos verbalitzadors del català. Descripció sintacticosemàntica. MA thesis, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Bernal, Elisenda 2000 Els sufixos verbalitzadors del català. Relacions semàntiques i diccionari. Ph.D. dissertation, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Bernal, Elisenda 2010 Nuevos prefijos: Implicaciones para la morfología y la lexicografía. In: Maria Iliescu, Heidi Siller-Runggaldier and Paul Danler (eds.), Actes du XXV Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes (Innsbruck, 3−8 septembre 2007), Vol. 7, 361− 374. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. Bernal, Elisenda 2012 Catalan compounds. Probus 24(1): 5−27. Bernal, Elisenda and Janet DeCesaris 2006 Nominalitzacions deverbals: Distribució formal i semàntica. In: Actes del VII Congrés de Lingüística General. [s.p.] CD-ROM. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.

2660

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Bruguera, Jordi 2006 Diccionari de la formació de mots. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana. Cabré, M. Teresa 1994 A l’entorn de la paraula. 2 Vol. València: Universitat de València. Cabré, M. Teresa 2002 La derivació. In: Joan Solà, M. Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani. Vol. 1, 731−775. Barcelona: Empúries. Cabré, M. Teresa and Gemma Rigau 1985 Lexicologia i semàntica. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana. Cabré Monné, Teresa 2002 Altres sistemes de formació de mots. In: Joan Solà, M. Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani. Vol. 1, 889−932. Barcelona: Empúries. Enciclopèdia Catalana 2004 Hiperdiccionari. CD-ROM. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana. Estopà, Rosa 2010 La composició patrimonial en català perd representativitat: Estudi d’un corpus de neologismes de premsa i ràdio. Estudis Romànics 32: 125−147. Fabra, Pompeu 1956 Gramàtica catalana. Barcelona: Teide. Gràcia, Lluïsa 2002 La composició. In: Joan Solà, M. Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani. Vol. 1, 777−829. Barcelona: Empúries. Grossmann, Maria 1994 Opposizioni direzionali e prefissazione. Analisi morfologica e semantica dei verbi egressivi prefissati con des- e es- in catalano. Padova: Quaderni Patavini di Lingüística. López del Castillo, Lluís 2002 Diccionari de formació de paraules. Barcelona: Edicions 62. Lorente, Mercè 2002 Altres elements lèxics. In: Joan Solà, M. Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani. Vol. 1, 831−888. Barcelona: Empúries. Marvà, Jeroni 1968 [1934] Curs superior de gramàtica catalana. Barcelona: Barcino. Observatori de Neologia 2004 Llengua catalana i neologia. Barcelona: Meteora. Ruaix, Josep 1986 El català. Vol. 3: Lexic i estilística. Moià: Ruaix. Rull, Xavier 1998 La conversió. Aspectos teòrics i descripció. MA thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. Rull, Xavier 1999 -eig: Entre la genuïnitat i el calc. Els Marges 63: 59−88. Rull, Xavier 2004 La formació de mots. Qüestions de normativa. Vic: Eumo. Rull, Xavier 2007 Els substantius d’acció i efecte en català. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. Rull, Xavier 2009a De la sufixació en català. Apunts i reflexions (1999−2009). Benicarló: Onada Edicions. Rull, Xavier 2009b La composició culta en català. Palma: Moll.

147. French

2661

Saragossà, Abelard 1991 Notes sobre els sufixos -er(a) i -ar. In: Antoni Ferrando and Albert G. Hauf (eds.), Estudis de llengua i literatura. Miscel·lània Joan Fuster. Vol. 3, 397−433. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat. Solà, Joan, M. Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.) 2002 Gramàtica del català contemporani. 3 Vol. Barcelona: Empúries. Solé, Elisabet 2002 Els noms col·lectius catalans. Descripció i reconeixement. Ph.D. dissertation, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Turón, Lídia 1999 La construcció del significat en els mots complexos. Semàntica dels derivats amb formes prefixades preposicionals. MA thesis, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Vallès, Teresa 2007 Els prefixoides del català. In: Mercè Lorente, Rosa Estopà, Judit Freixa, Jaume Martí and Carles Tebé (eds.), Estudis de lingüística aplicada en honor de M. Teresa Cabré Castellví. Vol. 2: Deixebles, 459−471. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Maria Teresa Cabré Castellví, Barcelona (Spain)

147. French 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Conclusion References

Abstract This article offers a synthesis of the main morphological processes found in French. Even though these processes are also found in other Romance languages, their particular manifestation relies on the specific properties of French syntax and French phonology.

2662

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

1. Introduction It would be a real “tour de force” to offer in a few pages a synthesis of the research carried out on French word-formation for over more than two centuries. Hundreds of books and papers on French word-formation have been published since Butet’s Abrégé d’un cours complet de lexicologie printed in 1801, up to the recent volume Des unités morphologiques au lexique published in 2011 by Roché et al. Most aspects of French morphology have been discussed since the golden age of Romance philology (cf. among others Darmesteter 1895; Nyrop 1908; Clédat 1917 and 1925), and numerous studies have since then been devoted to specific problems of French word-formation: Pichon (1942), Dubois (1962) and Gruaz (1988) on suffixation, Nilsson-Ehle (1941) and Łozińska (1972) on -ment adverbs, Hasselrot (1972) on diminutives, Guilbert (1975) on lexical creativity. The absence of a general overview on wordformation has led André Clas in 1987 to translate Johannes Thiele’s Wortbildung der französischen Gegenwartssprache. Many reflections and analyses relevant for French can be found in studies not strictly devoted to French morphology, without mentioning the many works published in less accessible languages or within less accessible publishing houses (cf. among others the works of Jaromír Tláskal, Jan Šabršula, Józef Sypnicki, Marek Gawełko, Witold Mańczak, Jerzy Kuryłowicz, Małgorzata Nowakowska or Jan Kortas, to quote but a few). While Tsybova (2002) offers a comprehensive textbook on French lexicology, Brousseau and Nikiema (2001) is probably one of the most recent generative overviews of both French phonology and morphology since Corbin (1987). Fradin, Kerleroux and Plénat (2009) offer a formal account of the most discussed aspects of French morphology.

2. General overview The main morphological processes found in the Romance languages are also available in French: affixation, compounding, conversion, truncation, blending, etc. The highly synthetic nature of French makes it difficult to decide whether a given expression is simple or complex, especially because many strata of lexical structure may be found: Latin has continuously been a source of lexical borrowings, hence the existence of doublets with a phonetically regular outcome of the Vulgar Latin input along with a petrified adaptation of Latin terms (cf. rigide ‘rigid’ vs. raide ‘stiff’). As is well known, since the Middle Ages neoclassical elements have been widely used in scientific terminology, and English has now become a fundamental source of enrichment of the French lexicon, without mentioning former waves of borrowings from Arabic, Italian, Spanish, etc. The interconnection between these strata makes it hard to draw any clear-cut dichotomy between derived and non-derived words, and between syntactic phrases and compounds − without mentioning the fundamentally dynamic nature of ongoing phenomena such as lexicalization and grammaticalization. One of the consequences of this stratal structure is that allomorphy and suppletion are pervasive in French (cf. Meillet 1913). If a negative adjective such as instable ‘unstable’ can be said to result from the prefixation of in- to the adjectival stem stable, nothing can help the speaker to form insipide ‘tasteless’ from savoureux ‘tasty’: insipide has to be learned as such and many other formations show the same properties.

147. French

2663

3. Composition As a rule, compounds arise from the coalescence of independent lexemes which progressively form a new lexical unit understood as a semantic whole (cf. Bauer 2001: 695). However, we should not expect to find any clear-cut division between a syntactic string and a compound. Benveniste (1974) holds the view that expressions like toujours ‘always’ or aujourd’hui ‘today’ are not “compounds” but “conglomerates”, because the internal structure of the expression is not accessible anymore, as opposed to, say, poisson-chat ‘catfish; lit. fish cat’ (cf. also Séchehaye 1921: 656). A distinction is made as well between compounds stricto sensu and a subtype dubbed “synapsie”, which is syntactic in essence and consists of a group of lexemes connected by a linker: pomme de terre ‘potato; lit. apple of earth’, chemin de fer ‘railway; lit. way of iron’, etc. In comparison, compounds proper show a greater degree of coalescence and their formation heavily relies on abstract “models”.

3.1. Noun-noun compounds French Ni-Nj compounds have been classified according to the semantic relation existing between the two elements (see article 38 on noun-noun compounds in French). Ni-Nj sequences are left-headed determinative compounds when the compound as a whole is a hyponym of Ni: a poisson-chat ‘catfish’ and a voiture-bar ‘buffet-car’ are not a kind of cat (chat) or a kind of bar (bar), but a kind of fish (poisson) and a kind of carriage (voiture). However, in other cases the relation between the two elements doesn’t seem to be inclusive but additive (cf. Olsen 2002: 249; Beszterda and Sypnicki 2004: 43 ff.): one could argue that auteur-compositeur ‘singer-songwriter’ refers to a subset of the set denoted by the noun auteur ‘author’, but the order of the elements can be reversed without any significant difference from a semantic point of view (compositeur-auteur is widely attested on the web). Similarly, a compound like canne-parapluie ‘cane umbrella; lit. stick-umbrella’ is mentioned in 1846 in the Description des machines et procédés consignés dans les brevets d’invention, de perfectionnement et d’importation along with parapluie-canne as designation of the same object. This kind of compounds displays a coordinative relation, whereby a given individual or object is picked out coupling nominal expressions that bring together some complementary and salient features of some entities or functions. If we assume that Ni-Nj compounds arise as the crystallization of an epithetic phrase, it is no wonder, then, that the head is initial: Nj in assurance vie ‘life insurance’ has the same qualifying function as the proper noun Woerth in affaire Woerth ‘Woerth case’. This pattern reflects an old syntactic construction which is traceable in such expressions as Hôtel-Dieu ‘general hospital’, bain-Marie, fête-Dieu ‘Corpus Christi’, etc. (Darmesteter 1895: 12−13). Lombard (1930: 260) holds that fête-Dieu, bain-Marie, etc. represent an obsolescent pattern which could not provide a structural model; rather, he takes the NN configuration to have generalized and expanded in commercial, journalistic, industrial spheres as an economic device (see article 38 on noun-noun compounds in French for a discussion of the nature and origin of this type of formation). Ni-Ni reduplicative compounds are special in that they do not seem to be fully productive in French, despite such examples as train-train ‘routine; lit. train-train’ or cul-cul

2664

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

‘naïve; lit. ass-ass’ and despite the availability of lexical doubling as a means of conveying high degree value (cf. une femme femme ‘a real woman; lit. a woman woman’, un café café ‘a real coffee; lit. a coffee coffee’).

3.2. Noun-adjective and adjective-noun compounds The semantic relationship between the members of compounds like rouge-gorge ‘robin; lit. red-breast’, pied-noir ‘Algerian born Frenchman; lit. foot-black’, sage-femme ‘midwife; lit. wise woman’, casque bleu ‘UN peacekeeper; lit. helmet blue’, etc. is a determinans-determinatum relationship: from the point of view of “signifié”, no other instruction is given than that of limiting a notional domain with the adjunction of an adjective which restricts the potential referents of the N. The identity of the referent picked out crucially relies on general shared knowledge of such conventionalized expressions, but the compound itself does not provide any information other than the co-construction of a new notion by the qualification of a given head noun (cf. Coseriu 1981: 5). In other words, as Coseriu puts it, exocentricity does not concern composition itself but the fact of assigning a given name to a given object: that rouge-gorge ‘robin’ refers to a kind of bird (or a kind of breast, a kind of bra, a kind of person or restaurant) is not signified by the compound itself (cf. the case of Maison Blanche ‘White House’ which refers to a kind of house, but can shift its reference metonymically to the President’s administration or to a periodically-changing individual fulfilling the function of “president”). Even though Corbin (2004: 1287) takes expressions such as rouge-gorge ‘robin’, chaperon rouge ‘red riding hood’, etc. to be “lexicalized phrases” generated by syntactic rules, they show the same semantic unity and the same formal coalescence as other compounds. This does not mean, of course, that the same degree of internal cohesion should be expected for all noun-adjective compounds. By the way, it has been pointed out since Weil (1887: 62, 81) that some asymmetry manifests itself in word order (A-N vs. N-A). The distinction between what Weil calls the “ascending construction” which “binds more closely the ideas that have been put into relation with one another” vs. the “descending construction” which “tends more to detach them from one another” manifests itself as well in the phonetic reduction of the A in A-N compounds. Complex expressions such as tilapin ‘small rabbit’, titoeuf ‘small egg’ or titrain ‘small train’ show up with a truncated form of the adjective petit [pəti] ‘small’ and show greater internal cohesion. Interestingly, truncation is not available when the adjective appears in postnominal position (cf. *lapin ti, *oeuf ti and *train ti), thus providing further evidence for the asymmetrical relationship between pre- and postnominal adjectives.

3.3. Adjective-adjective compounds Putting aside the particular type illustrated by such formations as italo-américain ‘ItaloAmerican’, Ai-Aj compounds don’t seem to be very numerous in French. We can mention such formations as gris vert ‘green-grey’, aigre-doux ‘sweet and sour’, sourd-muet ‘deaf-and-dumb’, etc., where the properties denoted by the adjectives are summed up: sourd-muet is said of an individual who is at the same time deaf (sourd) and dumb

147. French

2665

(muet). Among Ai-Ai compounds, very few examples can be mentioned: bonbon ‘sweetie; lit. good-good’, doudou ‘security blanket; lit. soft-soft’, foufou ‘scatty; lit. crazycrazy’, etc. (see section 7).

3.4. Verb-noun compounds French and Romance V-N compounds have long been investigated (for a discussion, see article 39 on verb-noun compounds in Romance). Their analysis has largely concentrated upon the nature of the first element of the compound: bare stem, 3rd pers. sg. (indicative present) or 2nd pers. sg. (imperative). While Darmesteter seemed to favour the imperative hypothesis, as confirmed by historical and comparative evidence, many linguists have suggested that the first element of compounds such as essuie-mains ‘hand towel; lit. dryhands’, porte-bonheur ‘lucky charm; lit. bring-luck’, etc. should be viewed as an uninflected form, i.e. a bare stem. From a semantic point of view, V-N compounds are particularly successful as a morphological device assigning a new naming unit to new concepts or objects. Interestingly, the class of objects referred to by the noun essuiemains is more limited (and concrete) than that referred to by the noun porte-bonheur. It follows that porte-bonheur can be used more freely as a dependent on a head noun: chiffre ‘figure’, nom ‘name’, bébé ‘baby’, chien ‘dog’, livre ‘book’, etc. can all head a NP modified by porte-bonheur.

4. Derivation As stated above, the French lexical system is characterized by the interplay of several strata of different type and origin, and derivation is highly constrained by this peculiarity of French. Such suppletive patterns as degré ‘degree’ > graduel ‘gradual’; enfant ‘child’ > puéril ‘childish’ cannot be understood without reference to the learned vocabulary dubbed as “savant” (cf. Meillet 1913: 389; Marouzeau 1950: 75; Corbin 1976: 95). While in compounding the constituents of a complex expression are themselves independent lexemes, in derivation functional elements are applied to a given base in order to produce a new lexeme.

4.1. Nominal derivation Nominal derivation enriches the lexicon resorting to such operations as prefixation and suffixation. Prefixes show a weaker integration with the base than suffixes and they may be factorized with the same base (cf. pré- et post-colonial ‘pre- and postcolonial’ vs. *français et -aises ‘Frenchmen and women’): prefixes are more autonomous than suffixes and may show a word-like behaviour (cf. Corbin 1999: 69). While prefixation usually does not modify the syntactic properties of the base, suffixation may imply a categorial change of the element to which it applies. However, this characterization is too schemat-

2666

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

ic: as observed by Kuryłowicz (1936: 84), diminutive suffixes attach to a given nominal stem without changing the syntactic function of the element to which they apply.

4.1.1. Denominal nouns Many affixes may be used to form denominal nouns. As mentioned in Rainer (2004: 1705), French prefixes show a clear diachronic link to Latin prepositions or adverbs and they often express spatio-temporal relations. Relevant here are such denominal formations as surhomme ‘superman’, parterre ‘floor; lit. on earth’, sous-titre ‘subtitle’, inconfort ‘discomfort’, etc.: they refer either to a subclass of the superordinate head noun, or to a localization of the notion referred to by the head noun − of course this includes absence of localization, or dissociation. Suffixed denominal nouns are so numerous that only a selection of them can be mentioned here. Insofar as they may form nouns that refer to the followers of a given individual or doctrine, -isme, -iste, -ard, -ie, etc., are frequently used with proper names: gaullisme ‘Gaullism’, épicurisme ‘epicureanism’; sarkozyste ‘sarkozyst’, darwiniste ‘darwinist’ (cf. Roché 2011); dreyfusard ‘defender of Dreyfus’, sorbonnard ‘pedantic’ (← Sorbonne; cf. Glaser 1910); chiraquie ‘Chirac-land’, sarkozye ‘Sarkozy-land’, etc. But of course, suffixes such as -iste, -age, -ier, -(e)rie, -aille may form as well many types of nouns denoting professions (cf. poisson ‘fish’ → poissonnier ‘fishmonger’), instrument/containers (salade ‘salad’ → saladier ‘salad bowl’), places (berger ‘shepherd’ → bergerie ‘sheepfold’), trees (olive ‘olive’ → olivier ‘olive tree’; cf. Roché 1998), collective nouns (feuille ‘leaf’ → feuillage ‘foliage’). Needless to say, there is no hermetic separation between these different categories, and one and the same name may be ambiguous as to which reality or referent it may pick out: patatier (← patate ‘potato’) can be either a plant name or the name of a seller/producer of potatoes. The suffix -(e)rie is historically the result of a reanalysis of -ie. This change is witnessed by such doublets as Old Fr. aumône ‘charity’ → aumônie/aumônerie ‘chaplaincy’ (cf. Darmesteter 1895: 70; Nyrop 1899: 183). Interestingly, -erie may apply to proper names like Chirac, and the denominal noun chiraquerie may refer either to a collection of individuals understood as a whole − the clan or system organized around/by Jacques Chirac (cf. chiraquie) − or to (negatively/positively) valued actions performed by/on the model of Chirac. Needless to say, even though such a formation is not per se “evaluative”, it conveys an undisputable subjective valuation (cf. Kortas 2003). Of a more strictly evaluative nature are deonomastic nouns such as Jacquot (a nickname of Jacques Chirac), Pierrot ← Pierre, Jeannot ← Jean, with the diminutive (depreciative) suffix -ot. The same suffix appears in denominals such as frérot ← frère ‘brother’, îlot ← île ‘island’, ballot ← balle ‘ball’, but it seems to be less productive than the variants -et/-ette. Among deonomastic nouns, we may mention Jeannette ← Jeanne; Juppette ← Juppé, Balladurette ← Balladur (scrappage premium introduced by Juppé and Balladur respectively), and among common nouns maisonnette ← maison ‘house’, mesurette ← mesure ‘measure’. Of course, -et and -ette are not semantically equivalent: they can appear in many formations in which the denominal noun does not refer to a small sample of the class referred to by the base noun (cf. manchette ‘cuff’ ← manche ‘sleeve’, chevalet ‘easel’ ← cheval ‘horse’). Fradin (2003a) points out that some denomi-

147. French

2667

nals only exist in the feminine or masculine (cf. *Balladuret, *Juppet), while some doublets can be found that show semantic specialization (cf. tiret ‘dash’ vs. tirette ‘leaf’ ← tirer ‘to pull’; piquet ‘stake’ vs. piquette ‘plonk’ ← piquer ‘to tickle’). Notice that the same suffix may also form deadjectival nouns (cf. section 4.1.2).

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Noiret or Longuet are well-known deadjectival proper names (← noir ‘black’, long ‘long’). Even though the same suffixal formation may be found among plant or animal names (cf. bleuet ‘cornflower’ ← bleu ‘blue’; rouget ‘mullet’ ← rouge ‘red’), quality nouns probably form the largest class of deadjectival nouns. Froideur ‘coldness’, blancheur ‘whiteness’, etc. are quality nouns derived with the suffix -eur, but the same kind of quality nouns may be formed from other suffixes: the derived noun of timide ‘shy’ is timidité ‘shyness’ (*timideur), and the antonym of grandeur ‘size’ is not *petiteur but petitesse ‘smallness’. In some cases, distinct suffixes (for example -eur and -esse) can apply to one and the same adjectival base and produce different quality nouns with semantic specialization: largeur ‘width’ vs. largesse ‘generosity’; grosseur ‘thickness’ vs. grossesse ‘pregnancy’, etc. As is clear, the construction of deadjectival quality nouns cannot be inferred by rules and partly has to be learned. The situation is even more complex when the derived noun selects an allomorphic base: even though humblesse (← humble ‘humble’) is attested, the corresponding deadjectival quality noun is humilité ‘humility’. In the case of cécité ‘blindness’ or rigidité ‘rigidity’, no formal association can be established with the corresponding adjectives aveugle ‘blind’ and raide ‘stiff’: this kind of suppletion is far from rare and relies once again on the particular configuration of the French lexicon referred to earlier.

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns Various suffixes can be attached to a verb to create deverbal nouns: the stem of the verb frotter ‘to rub’ provides the base for frottage ‘rubbing’, frottis ‘smear’, frottement ‘rubbing’, frotteur ‘rubber’, frottoir ‘rubbing-cloth’ and the stem of the verb plisser ‘to pleat’ provides the base for plissement ‘puckering’, plissure ‘pleats’, plissage ‘pleating’, plissé ‘pleats’, etc. Of course, each formation is limited to a specific semantic sphere. In other cases, a less clearly identifiable stem appears in deverbal nouns and adjectives (cf. acteur ‘actor’, action ‘action’, actif ‘active’, activité ‘activity’, etc., where Jullien 1849: 152 identifies a pure form corresponding to the supine stem; cf. on this question Bonami, Boyé and Kerleroux 2009). The relationship between a given action and its result explains the frequent evolution from process to resulting state (cf. Wagner 1961). Given that the resulting state brings about a new state of affairs affecting such or such an entity in a given place, it is no wonder that the name of the process may become the name of a new entity (cf. suçage/ sucement ‘sucking’, suçade/sucée/sucerie ‘suck’, sucette ‘lollipop’). These examples show that action nouns may be formed by resorting to various suffixes: -ment (enterre-

2668

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

ment ‘burial’ ← enterrer ‘to bury’), -ure (lecture ‘reading’ ← lire ‘to read’), -ée (arrivée ‘arrival’ ← arriver ‘to arrive’), -age (atterrissage ‘landing’ ← atterrir ‘to land’), -tion (punition ‘punishment’ ← punir ‘punish’), -aison (livraison ‘delivery’ ← livrer ‘to deliver’). Even though agent nouns may not be strictly ‘agentive’ (cf. moureur ‘dier’ ← mourir ‘to die’, subisseur ‘undergoer’ ← subir ‘to undergo’, tombeur ‘faller’ ← tomber ‘to fall’; perdant ‘loser’ ← perdre ‘to lose’), they tend to inherit from their base (prototypically verbal) its processual character. This also is the reason why deverbal agent nouns like tombeur ‘lady-killer’ (← tomber ‘to fall, throw’) generally trigger a causative reading. The relation between agent nouns and instrument nouns has long been pointed out. A noun like arroseur can refer either to human agents (cf. ‘waterer’ ← arroser ‘to water’), or to instruments (‘watering can’), despite the existence of a specific instrument noun, i.e. arrosoir (for a discussion of the relation between instrument and place nouns, see Rainer 2005 and article 74 on agent and instrument nouns).

4.2. Adjectival derivation The case of deverbal nouns in -ant has been taken to illustrate the existence of a continuum between flexion and derivation: a participial form used as a dependent of a given head loses its verbal properties (valency, government, etc.) and becomes an adjective. The successive evolutionary path involves transposition of the adjective into noun thanks to the determiner: le levant ‘the rising’ ← levant ‘rising’ ← lever ‘to rise’ (cf. Tesnière 1988: 387, 456 ff.).

4.2.1. Deverbal adjectives An interesting feature of deverbal adjectives in -ant is the active/passive/middle/locative reading they can occasionally show (cf. Bescher 1821; Mercier 1879: 30 ff.; Tesnière 1988: 245−246): a remarque étonnante is a surprising observation, but a place payante is not a place that pays, but that you have to pay for (for the locative reading, cf. rue passante ‘busy street; lit. passing street’ and for the middle reading soleil levant ‘rising sun’). Thanks to their descriptive content, deverbal agent nouns in -eur can be used in attributive function (cf. Lombard 1930: 246 ff.): tueur/tueuse ‘killer’ (← tuer ‘to kill’) can be said of (almost) any entity (cf. guêpe tueuse ‘killing wasp’, route tueuse ‘killing road’, livre tueur ‘killing book’). Of course, many other formations could be mentioned: apart from adjectives in -able/ -ible (cf. pensable ‘thinkable’ ← penser ‘to think’; risible ‘laughable’ ← rire ‘to laugh’), we can mention those in -if (cf. pensif ‘pensive’ ← penser ‘to think’), in -(at)oire (cf. éliminatoire ‘eliminatory’ ← éliminer ‘to eliminate’), in -ard (cf. vantard ‘boastful’ ← (se) vanter ‘to boast’), etc.

147. French

2669

4.2.2. Denominal adjectives If we assume that prototypical adjectives are simple (underived) lexemes that encode concrete and gradable qualities, denominal adjectives may then appear as non-prototypical. However, they offer a practical and productive means of enriching the lexical system. Most denominal adjectives are relational. Recall that “qualifying” adjectives are said to express an intrinsic (inherent) relation between a substance and a quality (cf. la rose est rouge ‘the rose is red’ / la rose rouge ‘the red rose’), while “relational” adjectives are supposed to express an extrinsic relation between two substances (cf. une boucherie chevaline ‘horse (meat) butcher’s; lit. butcher shop of horse’; cf. Frei 1929: 152). Needless to say, the term relational is not felicitous: an adjective which were not to some extent “relational” would not be an adjective anymore. Any denominal adjective can be made “relational” depending on the properties of the governing noun. It could be argued that a given property is directly conveyed in the case of qualifying adjectives, while it is mediately conveyed in the case of relational adjectives: solaire ‘solar’ modifies a given head noun (and restricts its potential referents) drawing a relation with the noun soleil ‘sun’. The unavailability of relational adjectives in attributive function or in gradation contexts would be a manifestation of their specific status (for an in-depth discussion, see Nowakowska 2004, Creissels 2006 Vol. 1: 201 ff.). However, in expressions like énergie solaire ‘solar energy’ or Communauté européenne ‘European Community’, the positional constraints on the adjective seem to be largely due to the relative coalescence of the N-A string and the ongoing lexicalization process − cf. as well marché noir ‘black market’, semaine blanche ‘skiing holidays; lit. week white’, where according to the habitual tests, the adjectives noir ‘black’ and blanche ‘white’ should be considered as relational adjectives (cf. *un marché très noir; *une semaine très blanche, *la noirceur du marché, *la blancheur de la semaine). In any case, relational adjectives are highly underspecified and their semantic value relies heavily on the context (cf. Roché 2006: 380). The success of relational (denominal) adjectives in French seems at least partly due to some economy principle (cf. la politique pétrolière et gazière chinoise ‘the Chinese oil and gas policy’ vs. la politique de la Chine en matière de pétrole et de gaz ‘the Chinese policy concerning oil and gas’) and to the semantic widening they may give rise to (cf. Kruszewski’s 1995 [1883]: 166 “law” according to which “the broader the use of a given word, the less content it will have” (1995 [1883]: 166): if lac salé lit. ‘lake salty’ can be said of a lake whose water contains salt, the denominal adjective of the NP facture salée ‘steep bill; lit. bill salty’ only maintains a loose connection with salt. Adjectives such as salé ‘salty’ (← sel ‘salt’), amoureux ‘in love’ (← amour ‘love’), sportif ‘athletic’ (← sport ‘sport’), magique ‘magic’ (← magie ‘magic’) or équitable ‘fair’ (← équité ‘equity’) are formed with the suffixes -é, -eux, -if, -ique and -able and they all have a non-relational reading: they allow gradation, restriction, contrast, predicativity and they may fall under the scope of negation. However, it would not be difficult to find contexts in which these properties are blocked (cf. passion amoureuse ‘passionate love’, association sportive ‘sport association’, formule magique ‘magic formula’, café équitable ‘fair trade coffee’).

4.2.3. Deadjectival adjectives Deadjectival adjectives can only be touched upon. They are formed with suffixes that express a subjective valuation of the quality conveyed by the adjective to which they

2670

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

apply. The suffix -issime indicates a high degree of a given quality (cf. célèbre ‘famous’ → célèbrissime ‘very famous’, riche ‘rich’ → richissime ‘very rich’). The same semantic instruction may be conveyed by prefixes such as super-, ultra- or hyper- (cf. ultra-riche ‘ultra rich’, hyper-célèbre ‘very famous’). At the opposite end, we can mention, among depreciative formations, -asse (fade ‘tasteless’ → fadasse), -ard (faible ‘weak’ → faiblard), -ot (jeune ‘young’ → jeunot), -et (simple ‘simple’ → simplet ‘simple-minded’), -âtre (jaune ‘yellow’ → jaunâtre ‘yellowish’). Of course, these adjectives may be nominalized; for example, the (former) adjective vieillard (← vieux ‘old’) has now become a noun with the meaning ‘old man’ (cf. Glaser 1910).

4.3. Verbal derivation Verbal derivation deserves special mention insofar as it may involve more complex configurations than those mentioned until now (cf. among others the question of parasynthesis or the question of multiple affix attachment as discussed, e.g., in article 29 on parasynthesis in Romance). Furthermore, as has been pointed out since Thorn’s 1907 pioneering work, almost any category may serve as a base for verbal derivation.

4.3.1. Denominal verbs Nouns may turn into verbs in different ways. We saw that the agentive suffix -eur may transpose a verb into a noun, and seemingly -Vser, -Vfier, -Vller, -oter, -oyer, etc. may turn a noun into a verb and convey aspectual values (cf. Kaliska 2007). Of course, each of these suffixes shows specific semantic features. With respect to jardiner ‘to garden’ (← jardin ‘garden’), jardinailler carries a subjective (depreciative) point of view of the process referred to by the verb (cf. as well rêver ‘to dream’ vs. rêvasser ‘to daydream’): jardiner and rêver describe a given process in a (relatively) neutral way and their semantic content is wider than that of jardinailler and rêvasser. Due to the depreciative connotation triggered by -ailler and -asser, the latter occur in a more restricted range of contexts (for instance Comment jardiner ‘how to garden’ is felicitous as a title of a paper on gardening, while ??Comment jardinailler can be said to be semantically ill-formed or to require very constrained conditions of utterance). In some cases, -ailler, -oter, etc. have been held to express iterativity − Michel (1858: 97) sees in the frequentative aspect the starting point of the depreciative value attached to -ailler suffixation. But rimailler ‘to write bits of verse’ (← rime ‘rhyme’) − like rimasser − may not imply any iteration of the process: this “dépréciatif verbal”, as Butet (1801: 177) calls it, indicates that the base N (i.e. rime) is negatively valued (cf. Plénat 1999a; Kaliska 2007). On the other hand, -Vser/-Vfier usually involve a change of state (cf. caraméliser ‘to caramelize’ ← caramel ‘caramel’; vinifier ‘to convert into wine’ ← vin ‘wine’). Notice that an allomorphic stem can serve as a base: glorifier ‘to glorify’ (cf. gloire ‘glory’); fructifier ‘to bear fruit’ (cf. fruit ‘fruit’), etc.

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Even though verbs derived by -Vfier may also have adjectival bases (cf. purifier ‘to purify’ ← pur ‘pure’; simplifier ‘to simplify’ ← simple ‘simple’), -Vfier and -Vser show

147. French

2671

some kind of distribution in the selection of the adjectival classes used as morphological input. Adjectives with final [l] generally favour -Vser (cf. utile ‘useful’ → utiliser ‘to use’ (?utilifier), brutal ‘brutal’ → brutaliser ‘to bully’ (?brutalifier). Other deadjectival verbs are prospérer ‘to thrive’ (← prospère ‘thriving’); fausser ‘to distort’ (← faux ‘false’); rougir ‘to blush’ (← rouge ‘red’). The dynamic/directional nature of derived verbs may explain the success of parasynthetic formations: égayer ‘to cheer up’ (← gai ‘cheerful’), attrister ‘to sadden’ (← triste ‘sad’), écourter ‘to shorten’ (← court ‘short’), élargir ‘to widen’ (← large ‘wide’), etc. In some cases, rival patterns are available (cf. clarifier ‘to clarify’/éclaircir ‘to lighten’, pacifier ‘to pacify’/apaiser ‘to calm’). See also article 29 on parasynthesis in Romance.

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs The aspectual/evaluative dimension of suffixes like -Vller and -oter has long been recognized. We said that jardinailler (vs. jardiner ‘to garden’) carries a subjective point of view of the process referred to by the verb. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the aspectual dimension of iterativity/quantification is at stake in the formation of deverbal verbs (cf. sautiller ‘to hop’ vs. sauter ‘to jump’; toussoter ‘to cough slightly’ vs. tousser ‘to cough’). Of course, in many cases the aspectual and evaluative readings cannot be clearly distinguished. Even though Butet (1801: 160−161) ranges toussoter ‘to cough slightly’ among ‘diminutive-gradative’ verbs and sautiller ‘to hop’ among ‘diminutive-frequentatives’, a clear cut distinction can hardly be drawn. A given suffix can be expected to show some variation in its semantic instruction, its functional properties and its morphological integration: titiller ‘to titillate’, scintiller ‘to sparkle’, vaciller ‘to waver’, sautiller ‘to hop’, mordiller ‘to nibble’, pétiller ‘to fizz’, trottiller ‘to jog’, tortiller ‘to twist’, grappiller ‘to pick up’ all show the same final string. Of course, titiller, scintiller, vaciller, etc., which continue Latin titillare, scintillare, vacillare, can no longer be segmented into identifiable morphological units (vs. trottiller, grappiller, etc.). As Grammont (1901: 139, 1963: 410) points out, the phonaesthetic value of -iller deverbals iconically relies on the phonetic make-up of the suffix; it is then to be expected that particularly flashy expressions such as titiller, scintiller, etc. serve as a model for miscellaneous formations of various nature.

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbial derivation has been the topic of many discussions concerning the nature and origin of -ment (< Latin mente ‘mind’ (ablative)). Darmesteter (1877: 122) observes that this element has become a derivational device that can turn almost any adjective into an adverb: in other words it has morphologized (cf. Joseph 2003: 472−473). From a functional point of view, manner adverbs in -ment are highly productive and can be seen as the elements to which the concept “adverb” most typically applies: they delimit a subset of the set referred to by the verb in the same way as the attributive adjective delimits a subset of the set referred to by the head noun (cf. Creissels 2006 Vol. 1: 253).

2672

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

From a phonological standpoint, the variable selection of the stem has been claimed to rely on dissimilation constraints: Plénat (2011: 170−172) observes that while méchamment ‘nastily’ (← méchant ‘nasty’), intelligemment ‘cleverly’ (← intelligent ‘clever’), etc. show up with a presuffixal oral vowel, French speakers tend to replace the presuffixal oral vowel by the nasal vowel + [t]/[d] sequence of the “feminine” stem when the last syllable of the adjective shows up with a labial or nasal onset. Charmantement ‘delightfully’ (← charmant ‘charming’) or aimantement ‘lovingly’ (← aimant ‘loving’) are then preferred over charmamment and aimamment.

5. Conversion Conversion (or “zero derivation”) as a morphological operation refers to a categorial transposition that takes place without any formal change (cf. Haspelmath 2002: 24). Needless to say, the question of whether a given phenomenon should be recognized as conversion is widely language-dependent and theory-driven. As pointed out by Manova (2005: 13), if conversion is frequent in languages approaching the isolating type (cf. to walk → a walk), word-class-changing conversion is rare in Slavic languages, where the formal coincidence of expressions is rare (cf. Sundén 1904: 19). In French expressions like une étoffe citron ‘a lemon-coloured fabric’, boire frais ‘drink chilled’, taper dur ‘to hit out hard’, etc. Tesnière (1988: 380−381) sees a special type of transposition (“translation”) dubbed “translation sans marquant” (the definite article is taken to be a transpositional sign − “translatif” − in cases like le rouge ‘the red’, le bleu ‘the blue’, etc.). Kerleroux (1999) and Corbin (2004) identify in French the following possibilities: Tab. 147.1: Conversion in French Output categories

Input categories

N

N

V

impossible

a) l’attaque ‘the attack’ b) le guide ‘the guide’

V

clou(er)

‘to nail down’

impossible

A

marron

‘brown’

unrealized

A le sérieux le calme le vide

‘seriousness’ ‘stillness’ ‘vacuum’

mûr(ir)

‘to ripen’ impossible

Of course, Table 147.1 taken from Kerleroux (1999: 93) is not exhaustive. Other categories than noun, verb or adjective could be taken into account. Indefinites such as plusieurs ‘several’, certains ‘some’, aucun ‘no’ are dependents of some head (cf. plusieurs/ certains/aucun livre(s) ‘several/some/no book(s)’). However, they may qualify as syntactic heads in nounless NPs, in which case they could in principle be analyzed as converted pronouns. This kind of distribution, though, results from the reduction of a full NP (cf. Creissels 2006 Vol. 1: 68), and no morphological conversion needs to be postulated.

147. French

2673

5.1. Nominal conversion As a rule, conversion of a noun into a noun is unexpected: whatever is meant by, say, souris ‘mouse’, no categorial change is observed and this kind of example should then be ruled out. A special case is that of metonymic transfer, by which proper nouns may be converted into common nouns (cf. Darmesteter 1877: 42). Deadjectival conversion has been widely discussed. Butet (1801: 294) holds the view that in (le) blanc ‘the white’, (le) noir ‘the black’, etc. the adjective is substantivized and the phenomenon is given a syntactic account. Kuryłowicz (1936: 84−85) identifies as well in this case a syntactic derivation (attributive adjective → anaphoric adjective) followed by a lexical derivation (anaphoric adjective → noun). Notice that the selection of masculine gender is the result of gender neutralization (cf. Molinier 2006: 265); this transpositional operation productively turns adjectives into quality nouns (cf. calme ‘still’ → (le) calme ‘stillness’, sérieux ‘serious’ → (le) sérieux ‘seriousness’), sometimes alongside of existing abstract nouns (cf. (le) vulgaire/(la) vulgarité ‘vulgarity’). Action nouns such as (la) nage [naʒ] ‘swimming’ (← nager [naʒe] ‘to swim’) or (la) chasse [ʃas] ‘hunting’ (← chasser [ʃase] ‘to hunt’) have been claimed to illustrate deverbal conversion. As is well known, Egger (1864) held formations such as appel ‘call’, baisse ‘lowering’, change ‘change’, nage ‘swimming’, etc. to be the result of deletion of the infinitive ending. Tribout (2010: 64) suggests that these cases and others can be considered instances of conversion, provided we take conversion to allow phonologically distinct inputs and outputs. However, ajout ‘addition’ ← ajouter ‘to add’, tour ‘turn’ ← tourner ‘to turn’, refus ‘refusal’ ← refuser ‘to refuse’, arrêt ‘stop’ ← arrêter ‘to stop’, etc. could very well be argued to be the result of a subtractive operation. Take the paradigms A, B and C in Table 147.2: Tab. 147.2: The paradigms of baisser ‘to lower’, tourner ‘to turn’, refuser ‘to refuse’ A. baisser

B. tourner

C. refuser

ʒ

ə

b

ɛ

s

ʒ

ə

t

u

ʁ

n

ʒ

ə

ʁ

ə

f

y

z

t

y

b

ɛ

s

t

y

t

u

ʁ

n

t

y

ʁ

ə

f

y

z

i

l

b

ɛ

s

i

l

t

u

ʁ

n

i

l

ʁ

ə

f

y

z

n

u

b

e

s

õ

n

u

t

u

ʁ

n

õ

n

u

ʁ

ə

f

y

z

õ

v

u

b

e

s

e

v

u

t

u

ʁ

n

e

v

u

ʁ

ə

f

y

z

e

i

l

b

ɛ

s

i

l

t

u

ʁ

n

i

l

ʁ

ə

f

y

z

In the simplest case (cf. baisse [bɛs] ‘lowering’ ← baisser ‘to lower’ in A.), the action noun could be taken to be formed by removing the set of (preposed and postposed) person markers of the verb form (only the present indicative is here taken into account) − recall Kruszewski’s view according to which “[…] of the six forms of the present tense of the first, most productive, conjugation, four of them − je chante, tu chantes, il chante, ils chantent − have one stem distinguished only by prefixes which designate person” (1995 [1883]: 141). We thus obtain the action noun baisse [bɛs], which can be said to correspond to the bare verb stem (cf. Marouzeau 1952: 163; Wagner 1961: 373−374). In the case of tourner ‘to turn’ and refuser ‘to refuse’, however, the corresponding action

2674

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

noun (respectively tour ‘turn’ and refus ‘refusal’) cannot be said to be the result of the same process, which would give *tourne [tuʁn], *refuse [ʁəfyz] (in some cases, both outputs are attested: accroc ‘tear’/accroche ‘hanging’ ← accrocher ‘to hang’, etc.). The situation is even more complex in cases like achat ‘purchase’ ← acheter ‘to buy’ (< Old Fr. achater < Latin accaptare), aveu ‘confession’ ← avouer ‘to confess’, espoir ‘hope’ ← espérer ‘to hope’, where nothing can allow us to predict the form of the output and where historically stress placement played a crucial rule. Similarly, in the case of perte ‘loss’ ← perdre ‘to lose’, course ‘running’ ← courir ‘to run’, etc. we are dealing with old participial forms ousted as participles and recycled as action nouns − the new participial forms are built upon the present indicative stem (cf. Mańczak 1962: 157). As mentioned above, language is a land of fossils memorized by speakers, and even though sets of phonetic/morphological interconnections may bring about coherent micro-systems, other elements resist any levelling and remain outside the gravitation center of the system.

5.2. Adjectival conversion Adjectival conversion from adjectives is considered to be unattested in French, and so is adjectival conversion from verbs (cf., however, such examples as comble ‘packed’ ← combler ‘to fill in’, blême ‘pallid’ ← blêmir ‘to pale’, etc. discussed in Staaf 1931−32). Adjectival conversion from nouns has been widely discussed in the literature, especially in the field of colour terms. Among denominal adjectives, we can mention marron ‘chestnut’ → marron ‘brown’; orange ‘orange’ → orange ‘orange’; rose ‘rose’ → rose ‘pink’, etc. Constructions like il est très province ‘he is very provincial’ (lit. ‘province’) could be claimed to provide a further illustration of the conversion N → A (cf. Kerleroux 1996: 157 ff. for a discussion). As pointed out by Creissels (1995: 100) and (2006 Vol. 1, 213), the fact that a given noun may be used as attributive/predicative adjective (cf. la sauce tomate ‘tomato sauce’, les années chemise ‘the years of shirts’, il est très chemise ‘he loves shirts’) can be seen as a more general manifestation of the straight interconnection between the two classes.

5.3. Verbal conversion Corbin (2004: 1293) and Kerleroux (1999: 93) exemplify verbal conversion from nouns with such pairs as singe ‘monkey’ → sing(er) ‘to ape’, scie ‘saw’ → sci(er) ‘to saw’, clou ‘nail’ → clou(er) ‘to nail down’, etc. Potentially, any element (argument or satellite) can be turned into a verb: chronique ‘chronicle’ has given rise to chroniquer ‘to chronicle’, and a noun like piscine ‘swimming pool’ to pisciner ‘to enjoy the swimming pool’. Even though it is mentioned as unattested in French, a possible candidate for deverbal conversion from verbs would be couler (tr.) ‘to sink’ → couler (itr.) (cf. le missile a coulé le bateau ‘the missile sank the ship’ vs. le bateau a coulé ‘the ship has sunk’), casser (tr.) ‘break’ → casser (itr.) (cf. le vent a cassé la branche ‘the wind has broken the branch’ → la branche a cassé ‘the branch has broken’), etc. As a matter of fact, if conversion is claimed to apply without any formal change in the output form, these examples could at least in principle satisfy this property of conversion − Fradin (1993b:

147. French

2675

161) speaks in this case of “valency conversion”. On the other hand, it could be argued that we are dealing here with a syntactic phenomenon (the so-called “diathèse récessive sans marquant” discussed in Tesnière 1988), a valency-changing operation crucially relying on word order and redistribution of semantic roles (cf. Larjavaara 2000 for a discussion of labile verbs in French). Many verbs allow such a valency-changing operation depending on the choice of the speaker and his communicative needs (cf. the question of agent occultation or agent promotion, external causation, etc.; on lability as a kind of polysemy, see Letuchiy 2009).

5.4. Adverbial conversion Examples such as parler fort ‘to speak loud’ or bosser dur ‘to work hard’ are mentioned in the literature as illustration of the conversion A → Adv (cf. Kerleroux 1996: 298; Tribout 2010: 21). Given the direct relation between adjectives and -ment adverbs, it is no wonder that some adjectives may be recycled in the syntactic contexts in which the corresponding adverbs should be expected. A similar observation may be extended to constructions such as il est parti sans ses clefs ‘he left without his keys’ vs. il est parti sans 0̸ ‘he left without 0̸’, or je suis venu pour t’aider ‘I came to help you’ vs. je suis venu pour 0̸ ‘I came for 0̸’: sans ‘without’ and pour ‘for’ are claimed to be converted into adverbs. However, these examples illustrate some kind of “discourse reduction” (cf. Creissels 1995, 2006) and no evidence can be brought about in favour of a morphological conversion. The use of these adjectives or prepositions as “adverbs” is syntactically conditioned (cf. Butet 1801: 296) and the transpositional process can be more or less achieved (cf. Bally 1944: 299; Tláskal 2000: 151 ff.). In the same vein, the noun nature ‘nature’ in un air nature ‘a natural look’ (vs. un air naturel) could be argued to be converted into an adjective. However, this kind of construction clearly relies on the potentiality offered by the system to use nouns as dependents of nominal heads (see section 5.2).

6. Backformation Backformation is a general process by which a “derived” expression results in a “simpler” form than the input. However, some linguists hold the view that backformation should be considered a diachronic change which requires historical information in order to establish the direction of the change. Posner (1997: 166) recalls that the indefinite chaque ‘each’ is back-derived from chacun ‘each one’ on the model of quelque ‘some’ → quelqu’un ‘someone’; in the same way, the colour term violet ‘purple’ is back-derived from the feminine noun violette ‘violet’. She mentions as well cases like aide ‘help’ ← aider ‘to help’, oubli ‘omission’ ← oublier ‘to forget’, which are dealt with in section 5.1 on conversion.

7. Reduplication French only has few examples of total reduplication among (monosyllabic) nouns: traintrain ‘routine’, trou-trou ‘row of holes through which ribbon is passed’, cul-cul ‘naive’,

2676

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

etc. (cf. Kocher 1921). On the other hand, some V-V expressions may be found, whose status still is a matter of debate. In keeping with his analysis of V-N compounds, Darmesteter (1874: 201) holds the view that they involve double imperatives, and he adduces (p. 165) as examples pousse-pousse ‘rickshaw; lit. push-push’, cache-cache ‘hide-andseek; lit. hide-hide’, touche-touche ‘to play tig; lit. touch-touch’, etc. (cf. as well Nyrop 1908: 276). Partial reduplication is well-established in French hypocoristics formation: Mimi (← Michel), Lolo (← Laurence), Nini (← Nicolas), Zaza (← Isabelle), etc. (see Plénat 1999b for an in-depth analysis of the constraints underlying this kind of formation). In some cases, the initial CV sequence of the input is selected and attached to the left edge of the noun (cf. Rainer 1998): see fifille (← fille ‘daughter’), mèmère (← mère ‘mother’), baballe (← balle ‘ball’). Selection of the final CV sequence seems to be less frequent: tuture (← voiture ‘car’), gogol ‘idiot’ (← mongol ‘mongol’). It is nonetheless widely attested among hypocoristics: Mimile (< Emile), Bébert (← Robert), Nanard (← Bernard).

8. Blending Blending − along with hypocoristic formation, clipping, etc. − are said to be “marginal” or “extra-grammatical” morphological processes (cf. Fradin 1997, 1999, 2003b; KilaniSchoch and Dressler 2005: 98; Fradin, Montermini and Plénat 2009). Blends have a long history of investigation and their interest lies in their internal structure, particularly from the phonological point of view. As a morphological process taken to involve truncation or deletion, some conflicting constraints may arise between semantic recoverability and segmental loss: “the more segmental material from the base words there is, the easier it is to identify them” (Bat-El 2006: 67). The constraints at stake may be illustrated by such examples as French miséricable (misère ‘troubles’ + numéricable ‘numericable’), adulescent (adulte ‘adult’ + adolescent ‘adolescent’), motodidacte (moto ‘motorbike’ + autodidacte ‘self-taught’), nanterrement (Nanterre + enterrement ‘funeral’), damassacreur (Damas + massacreur ‘slaughterer’), etc. Needless to say, the jocular nature of these formations is evident and it is no wonder that many blends may be found that involve the name of some politicians. The following examples found in the web all take as input the name of Nicolas Sarkozy (in colloquial French: Sarko): sarkolage (Sarko + racolage ‘touting’), sarkochemar (Sarko + cauchemar ‘nightmare’), sarkopinage (Sarko + copinage ‘cronyism’), sarkopains (Sarko + copains ‘friends’), sarkoquins (Sarko + coquins ‘mates’), sarkocufié (Sarko + cocufié ‘cuckolded’), sarkolérique (Sarko + colérique ‘irascible’), sarkollabo (Sarko + collabo ‘collaborationist’), sarkolombo (Sarko + Colombo), sarkobouter (Sarko + s’arc-bouter ‘to brace oneself’), sarkorac (Sarko + Chirac), vantarkozy (vantard ‘boastful’ + Sarkozy), Darkozy (Darcos + Sarkozy), etc. to quote but a few.

9. Clipping As in backformation and hypocoristic formation, subtraction plays an important role in clipping. French examples of clipped forms are manif (← manifestation ‘demonstra-

147. French

2677

tion’), proc (← procureur ‘prosecutor’), instit (← instituteur ‘(primary school) teacher’), bénef (← benefice ‘profit’), etc. (cf. Sundén 1904: 51). As can be seen, these forms have a final consonant, but another productive pattern can be observed, where the remnant of truncation shows up with final -o (cf. Kilani-Schoch 1993): maso (← masochiste ‘masochist’), impro (← improvisation ‘improvisation’), resto (← restaurant ‘restaurant’), etc. The expressiveness of this final vowel combined with the existence of numerous -o compounds of neoclassical origin probably gave the impulse to new formations in which this vowel is not etymological: intello (← intellectual ‘intellectual’), prolo (← prolétaire ‘proletarian’), facho (← fasciste ‘fascist’), etc.

10. Conclusion Morphology has never ceased to be a central topic in linguistic research, even though it has been somewhat eclipsed by the dominant position of generative syntax. Halle (1973), Aronoff (1976) or Siegel (1979) are among the first attempts to integrate morphological structure into the overall architecture of (generative) grammar. The role and the importance of such concepts as analogy, frequency, optimization have been rediscovered in recent times, forgetting en passant what the linguistic sciences owe to such linguists as Jerzy Kuryłowicz or Witold Mańczak − without mentioning such pioneering works as those of Mikołaj Kruszewski (1995 [1883]) or Hermann Paul (1891). For sure, wordformation is a domain in which complex patterns, regularities and sub-regularities may be accurately observed and investigated. But examples such as the French verb compounds maintenir ‘to maintain’ (← main ‘hand’, tenir ‘to hold’) or culbuter ‘to (take a) tumble’ (← cul ‘ass’, buter ‘to bang’) show that unproductive and marginal patterns may be found, which hardly fit the general rules one may formulate. The question of how to account for idiosyncrasies, marginal or deviant patterns undoubtedly is one of the most challenging tasks for the morphologist.

11. References Aronoff, Mark 1976 Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bally, Charles 1944 Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: Francke. Bat-El, Outi 2006 Blend. In: Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd ed. Vol. 2, 66−70. Oxford: Elsevier. Bauer, Laurie 2001 Compounding. In: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook. Vol. 1, 695−707. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Benveniste, Emile 1974 Problèmes de linguistique générale. Vol. 2. Paris: Gallimard. Bescher, René F. 1821 Théorie nouvelle et raisonnée du participe français. Paris: Béchet.

2678

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Beszterda, Ingeborga and Józef Sypnicki 2004 Alcune considerazioni inerenti alla natura dei composti in francese ed in italiano. In: Marcela Świątkowska, Roman Sosnowski and Iwona Piechnik (eds.), Maestro e Amico. Miscellanea in onore di Stanisław Widłak. Mistrz i Przyjaciel. Studia dedykowane Stanisławowi Widłakowi, 41−47. Kraków: Wydawnictwo UJ. Bonami, Olivier, Gilles Boyé and Françoise Kerleroux 2009 L’allomorphie radicale et la relation flexion-construction. In: Bernard Fradin, François Kerleroux and Marc Plénat (eds.), Aperçus de morphologie du français, 103−125. SaintDenis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Brousseau, Anne-Marie and Emmanuel Nikiema 2001 Phonologie et morphologie du français. Montréal: Fides. Butet de la Sarthe, Pierre R. F. 1801 Abrégé d’un cours complet de lexicographie. Paris: Renouard. Clédat, Léon 1917 Manuel de phonétique et de morphologie historique du français. Paris: Hachette. Clédat, Léon 1925 Manuel de phonétique et de morphologie romanes. Paris: Champion. Corbin, Danièle 1976 Le statut des exceptions dans le lexique. Langue française 30: 90−110. Corbin, Danièle 1987 Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. 2 Vol. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Corbin, Danièle 1999 Pour une théorie sémantique de la catégorisation affixale. Faits de langues 14: 65−77. Corbin, Danièle 2004 Français (Indo-européen: Roman). In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan and Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Derivation. Vol. 2, 1285−1299. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Coseriu, Eugenio 1981 Les procédés sémantiques dans la formation des mots. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 35: 3−16. Creissels, Denis 1995 Eléments de syntaxe générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Creissels, Denis 2006 Syntaxe générale. Une introduction typologique. 2 Vol. Paris: Lavoisier. Darmesteter, Arsène 1877 De la création actuelle de mots nouveaux dans la langue française et des lois qui la régissent. Paris: Vieweg. Darmesteter, Arsène 1890 Note sur la langue et la grammaire françaises. III: Les adverbes en -ment. In: Arsène Darmesteter, Reliques scientifiques recueillies par son frère. Vol. 2, 287−294. Paris: Cerf. Darmesteter, Arsène 1895 Cours de grammaire historique. Troisième partie: Formation des mots et vie des mots. Paris: Delagrave. Dubois, Jean 1962 Etude sur la dérivation suffixale en français moderne et contemporain. Paris: Larousse. Egger, Emile 1864 Observations sur un procédé de dérivation très fréquent dans la langue française et dans les autres idiomes néolatins. Mémoires de l’Institut Impérial de France 24: 279−342. Fradin, Bernard 1997 Les mots-valises: Une forme productive d’existants impossibles? In: Bernard Fradin, Danièle Corbin, Benoit Habert, Françoise Kerleroux and Marc Plénat (eds.), Mots possibles et mots existants, 101−110. Lille: Université de Lille 3.

147. French

2679

Fradin, Bernard 1999 Combining forms, blends and related phenomena. In: Ursula Doleschal and Anna Thornton (eds.), Marginal and Extragrammatical Morphology, 11−59. München: LINCOM Europa. Fradin, Bernard 2003a Le traitement de la suffixation en -ET. Langages 152: 51−77. Fradin, Bernard 2003b Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Fradin, Bernard, Françoise Kerleroux and Marc Plénat (eds.) 2009 Aperçus de morphologie du français. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Frei, Henri 1929 La grammaire des fautes. Genève: Slatkine. Glaser, Kurt 1910 Le sens péjoratif du suffixe -ard en français. Romanische Forschungen 27: 932−983. Grammont, Maurice 1901 Onomatopées et mots expressifs. Revue des Langues Romanes 44: 97−158. Grammont, Maurice 1963 Traité de phonétique. Paris: Delagrave. Gruaz, Claude 1988 La dérivation suffixale en français contemporain. Rouen: Presses de l’Université de Rouen. Guilbert, Léon 1975 La créativité lexicale. Paris: Larousse. Halle, Maurice 1973 Prolegomena to a theory of morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3−16. Haspelmath, Martin 2002 Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold. Hasselrot, Bengt 1972 Etude sur la vitalité de la formation diminutive française au XX e siècle. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Joseph, Brian D. 2003 Morphologization from syntax. In: Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 472−492. Oxford: Blackwell. Jullien, Baptiste 1849 Cours supérieur de grammaire. Paris: Hachette. Kaliska, Agnieszka 2007 De la potentialité du système linguistique: Le cas des suffixes verbaux à fonction quantifiante. Echo des Etudes Romanes 3(1−2): 93−108. Kerleroux, Françoise 1996 La coupure invisible. Etudes de syntaxe et de morphologie. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Kerleroux, Françoise 1999 Identification d’un procédé morphologique: La conversion. Faits de langues 14: 89− 100. Kilani-Schoch, Marianne 1993 Les maos ne sont pas des gauchos: Abréviations et formations en -o du français branché. Bulletin CILA 57: 45−58. Kocher, Frida 1921 Reduplikationsbildungen im Französischen und Italienischen. Aarau: Sauerland. Kortas, Jan 2003 Expressivité dérivationnelle en français contemporain: Noms d’action. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia 29: 155−170.

2680

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Kruszewski, Mikołaj 1995 [1883] Outline of linguistic science. In: Mikołaj Kruszewski, Writings in General Linguistics, 34−178. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1936 Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique (contribution à la théorie des parties du discours). Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 37: 79−92. Larjavaara, Meri 2000 Présence ou absence de l’objet. Limites du possible en français contemporain. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Letuchiy, Alexander 2009 Towards a typology of labile verbs: Lability vs. derivation. In: Patience Epps and Alexandre Arkhipov (eds.), New Challenges in Typology, 247−268. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Lombard, Alf 1930 Les constructions nominales dans le français moderne. Etude syntaxique et stylistique. Uppsala/Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Łozińska, Maria 1978 La formation des adverbes en -ment dans le français contemporain. Varsovie: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Mańczak, Witold 1962 Phonétique et morphologie historiques du français. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Manova, Stela 2005 Towards a theory of conversion in Slavic: Evidence from Bulgarian, Russian and SerboCroatian. Glossos 6, https://slaviccenters.duke.edu/uploads/media_items/6manova. original.pdf [last access 1 Aug 2015]. Marouzeau, Jules 1950 Le mécanisme de la dérivation. In: Jules Marouzeau, Aspects du français, 68−79. Paris: Masson. Marouzeau, Jules 1952 Thèmes verbaux en français. Le Français Moderne 20(3): 161−164. Meillet Antoine 1913 La crise du français. Revue Bleue 51(2): 385−390. Mercier, Amédée 1879 Histoire des participes français. Paris: Vieweg. Michel, Louis C. 1858 Etudes sur la signification des mots et la propriété de l’expression ou cours complémentaire de grammaire et de langue française. Paris: Dezobry, E. Magdeleine and Co. Molinier, Christian 2006 Les termes de couleur en français: Essai de classification sémantico-syntaxique. Cahiers de Grammaire 30: 259−275. Nilsson-Ehle, Hans 1941 Les adverbes en -ment compléments d’un verbe en français moderne. Etude de classement syntaxique et sémantique. Lund: Gleerup/Copenhague: Munskgaard. Nowakowska, Małgorzata 2004 Les adjectifs de relation employés attributivement. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej. Nyrop, Kristoffer 1908 Grammaire historique de la langue française. Vol. 3: Formation des mots. Copenhague: Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag.

147. French

2681

Olsen, Susan 2002 Constraints on copulative compounds. In: Sybil Scholz, Monika Klages, Evelyn Hantson and Ute Römer (eds.), Language: Context and Cognition. Papers in Honour of WolfDietrich Bald’s 60 th Birthday, 247−257. München: Langenscheidt Longman. Paul, Hermann 1891 Principles of the History of Language. London: Longmans, Green and Co. (= Translation of Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, Halle/S.: Niemeyer 1886, by H. A. Strong). Pichon, Edouard 1942 Les principes de la suffixation en français. L’enrichissement lexical dans le français d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Editions d’Artrey. Plénat, Marc 1999a Poissonnaille, poiscail (et poiscaille): Forme et sens des dérivés en -aille. In: Marc Plénat, Michel Aurnague, Anne Condamines, Jean-Pierre Maurel, Christian Molinier and Claude Muller (eds.), L’emprise du sens. Structures linguistiques et interprétations. Mélanges de syntaxe et de sémantique offerts à André Borillo par un groupe d’amis, de collègues et de disciples, 249−269. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Plénat, Marc 1999b Prolégomènes à une étude variationniste des hypocoristiques à redoublement en français. Cahiers de Grammaire 24: 183−219. Plénat, Marc 2011 Enquête sur divers effets des contraintes dissimilatives en français. In: Michel Roché, Gilles Boyé, Nabil Hathout, Stéphanie Lignon and Marc Plénat, Des unités morphologiques au lexique, 145−190. Paris: Lavoisier. Posner, Rebecca 1997 Linguistic Change in French. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rainer, Franz 1998 La réduplication française du type fifille d’un point de vue diachronique. In: Ruffino Giovanni (ed.), Atti del XXI Congresso Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza, 279−289. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rainer, Franz 2004 From Latin to French. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan and Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Derivation. Vol. 2, 1698−1712. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Rainer, Franz 2005 Noms d’instruments/de lieu en -tor dans la Galloromania. Vox Romanica 64: 121−140. Roché, Michel 1998 Deux études sur la dérivation en -ier(e). Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail. Roché, Michel 2006 Comment les adjectifs sont sémantiquement construits. Cahiers de Grammaire 30: 373− 387. Roché, Michel 2011 Quel traitement unifié pour les dérivations en -isme et en -iste? In: Michel Roché, Gilles Boyé, Nabil Hathout, Stéphanie Lignon and Marc Plénat, Des unités morphologiques au lexique, 69−143. Paris: Lavoisier. Roché, Michel, Gilles Boyé, Nabil Hathout, Stéphanie Lignon and Marc Plénat 2011 Des unités morphologiques au lexique. Paris: Lavoisier. Séchehaye, Albert 1921 Locutions et composés. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 18: 654−675. Siegel, Dorothy 1979 Topics in English Morphology. New York: Garland.

2682

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Staaf, Erik 1931−32 Sur la formation d’adjectifs postverbaux en français. Studia Neophilologica 4(3): 97−119. Sundèn, Karl 1904 Contribution to the Study of Elliptical Words in Modern English. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Sypnicki, Józef 1979 La composition nominale en français et en polonais. Poznań: AMU. Tesnière, Lucien 1988 Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Thiele, Johannes 1987 La formation des mots en français moderne. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal (= Translation of Wortbildung der französischen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie 1985, by André Clas). Thorn, Anders C. 1907 Etude sur les verbes dénominatifs en français. Lund: Möller. Tláskal, Jaromír 2000 La transposition en français contemporain. Contribution à l’étude du problème. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze. Tribout, Delphine 2010 Les conversions de nom à verbe et de verbe à nom en français. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris 7. Tsybova, Irina 2002 Essai de lexicologie française. Szczecin: Uniwersytet Szczeciński. Wagner, Robert-Léon 1961 Observations sur les mots construits dérivés du français. Revue de Linguistique Romane 25: 372−382. Weil, Henri 1887 The Order of Words in the Ancient Languages Compared with that of the Modern Languages. Boston: Ginn & Company.

Franck Floricic, Paris (France)

148. Ladin 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion References

Abstract This article provides an overview of the available and productive word-formation patterns of composition, derivation and conversion in Ladin, a group of Romance varieties

148. Ladin

2683

of Northern Italy. The article also shows that in order to satisfy denotation needs, wordformation in Ladin interacts very closely with borrowing. This can be explained with the status of Ladin as a contact and minor language.

1. Introduction The name Ladin refers to a group of Romance varieties spoken by approximately 30,000 people in the regions of Trentino-South Tyrol and Veneto in the North of Italy. These varieties have traditionally been viewed as belonging to Rhaeto-Romance, which apart from Ladin comprises the Romance varieties of the Grisons (Switzerland) and Friulian, spoken in the North-Eastern Italian region of Friuli. Ladin word-formation has not yet been studied extensively. The few existing publications either describe single areas of word-formation (Kovács 2008 [1943]; Siller-Runggaldier 1987; Messner 1991), provide an overview of the word-formation of individual varieties (Elwert 1943; Siller-Runggaldier 1989), discuss problems of word-formation in general and in Ladin in particular (Messner 1979; Siller-Runggaldier 1992 and 1994), or address issues of language planning concerning the development of the lexicon through word-formation for all Ladin varieties (Videsott 1994 and 1996). A complete overview of Ladin word-formation has yet to be produced.

2. General overview Ladin includes the following varieties: the Ladin of Val Gardena and Val Badia (Province of Bolzano), the Ladin of Val di Fassa (Province of Trento), and the Ladin of Livinallongo and Ampezzo (Province of Belluno). As contact languages they are strongly influenced by Italian, and the two northern Ladin varieties − Gardenese and Badiot − also by German, even more so because the Province of Bolzano is largely German-speaking. As far as word-formation is concerned, these two Ladin varieties frequently orient themselves towards the two neighbouring languages, which implies that word-formation and borrowing are very closely related and intertwined. The only cases of genuine Ladin word-formation are those without models in the two neighbouring languages. However, it is not always easy to determine what is native and what has been borrowed. For instance, there are two possible analyses of Gard. ferméda ‘stop’, in metonymical extension also ‘(bus, etc.) stop’: a loan translation of It. fermata or a derivation with the native suffix -éda from the verb fermé ‘to stop’. Today, this suffix and its allomorphs -ùda/-ída are used for a relatively large number of abstract nouns derived from verbs. Take for instance the noun giaurída ‘opening’ in an expression such as la giaurída de na mostra ‘the opening of an exhibition’: it is derived from the verb giaurì ‘to open’ and follows neither the semantically equivalent German derivative Eröffnung, nor the corresponding Italian derivative apertura; at least the suffixes do not correspond. The following section will provide a general overview of the word-formation patterns of Gardenese, as a representative example of all Ladin varieties. Together with Badiot, Gardenese has experienced a major boost in the last few decades, due to intensive efforts to promote and support it. This development has also led to an increased expansion of

2684

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

the lexicon, making productive use of available word-formation patterns. In addition, serial use is made of construction types not corresponding to canonical word-formation patterns. Minor languages, whose word-formation is usually less developed than that of larger languages, are particularly concerned with the question of how to linguistically realize denotation. For Ladin this question arises especially where no corresponding word-formation patterns are available to adequately translate products of word-formation of the two large neighbouring languages German and Italian. It is particularly difficult in the case of compounds for whose constituents Ladin has no adequate lexical equivalents. Such cases are often resolved by using paraphrases based on syntactic structures, for instance, prepositional phrases (cf. litadëures cun rejón de lité ‘persons entitled to vote; lit. voters with right to vote’) and explicit or implicit relative clauses (cf. sàla per chëi che scóta su ‘auditorium; lit. room for those who listen’; refudàm fat de plantes o iérba ‘biodegradable waste; lit. waste made from plants or grass’). The semantic-syntactic features of these paraphrases in the role of the modifier correspond to those of single lexical items: they form an indivisible unit with the head, and together with the head they denote a single entity and they occupy a single position in the sentence. However, as the modifier is a relative clause, the denoted entity is accessible through a predication that does not exclude syntactic variance. The paraphrases are thus less fixed than prototypical compound members, which justifies not considering them in the context of composition. They will therefore not be discussed any further here. Similarly, stretched-verb constructions such as mëter vèrda ‘pay attention; lit. do attention’ and verb-particle constructions such as purté prò ‘to contribute’ are also excluded from the description of compounds; their elements can be separated syntactically. Formations with neoclassical confixes − if indeed they are attributable to composition rather than derivation − will not be discussed either. Such kinds of formations are borrowings, for instance teleubietíf ‘telephoto lens’, radioatíf ‘radioactive’, videocassëta ‘video cassette’, autodidàt ‘autodidact’, patològich ‘pathological’, etc. In contrast, syntagmatic phrases of the type N+prep+N like cësa da fuèch ‘kitchen; lit. house of fire’ or uéle de cùcia ‘nut oil; lit. oil of nut’, will be considered. They do not go beyond the structure of a syntagmatic phrase and represent fixed lexical units. Moreover, they also behave like single lexemes and are mentally stored as a unit by speakers. Finally, backformation, reduplication, blending, clipping and word-creation are not relevant in Ladin. For the correct reading of the Gardenese examples presented and discussed in the sections below, note the following particular graphemes: the accent marks the stressed vowel; the graphemes é and ó stand for the stressed close-mid vowels [e] and [o], è and ò for the stressed open-mid vowels [ɛ] and [ɔ], ë for the stressed near-open central vowel [ɐ], g followed by i/e for [ʤ], c followed by i/e resp. c in final position for [ʧ], gh followed by i/e for [g], ch followed by i/e resp. ch in final position for [k], ss for [s], z for [ts] and in some cases also [dz], j for [ʒ], sc followed by i/e resp. sc in final position for [∫], s followed by p/t/c also for [∫].

3. Composition 3.1. Nominal compounds These include two-word constructions of the type N+N (pòsta-ària ‘air mail; lit. mailair’), N+A (fën sëch ‘dry hay; lit. hay dry’), A+N (mésa dumbría ‘half shade’), V+N

148. Ladin

2685

(mëinacrëp ‘mountain guide; lit. guide mountain’) and three-word constructions of the type N+Prep+N (di da lëur ‘weekday; lit. day of work’). Constructions of the type N+N, N+A, A+N and N+Prep+N are generally endocentric; those of the type V+N are exocentric. Apart from the constructions of the type V+N and a small number of constructions of the type N+N, all other combinations are determinative compounds. N o u n - n o u n c o m p o u n d s (N+N), formed by juxtaposition of the two noun elements, are rare in Gardenese and have probably come into the language via Italian models. Most of them are endocentric compounds of the type genus-species. The head precedes the modifier: flàut-pan ‘pan pipe’, sciòldi-familia ‘family allowance; lit. money-family’. A similar type concerns compounds consisting of a colour noun and a noun that denotes a comparative element. The head precedes the modifier (ghiél-limón ‘lemon yellow’) or follows it when the compound results from a translated German model (cf. ziédl cuécen ‘brick-red’, Germ. ziegelrot). There are also a few endocentric coordinative compounds of the type N+N. The copulative ones, whose constituents are equal in rank and thus have two heads, refer to the denotatum on the basis of two features of semantically equal weight (cësa-méje ‘house and farm in one; lit. house-farm’). This type of word-formation has also entered Gardenese via loanwords. Coordinative appositive compounds do not seem to have been productive in Gardenese: formations such as paròla tlé ‘key word; lit. word key’ are borrowings from Italian. Similarly, exocentric coordinative compounds of the type l Friul-Venezia Giulia (Friul + Venezia Giulia; the autonomous region of North-Eastern Italy) also have their origins in Italian word-formation. N o u n - a d j e c t i v e c o m p o u n d s (N+A) are by far the most frequent. These adjectives are restrictive and therefore consist mainly of relational adjectives that are themselves derivatives. These compounds are often formed after the example of German and/ or Italian, and sometimes English compounds. This means they always have to be seen in close connection with possible borrowing processes: curnísc mujighéla ‘musical setting’, rendimënt scolàstich ‘academic achievements’, tràfich motorisà ‘motor traffic’, viéra zevíla ‘civil war’, vía fieréda ‘fixed rope route’, arpizéda liédia ‘free climbing’. Although the pattern for a d j e c t i v e - n o u n c o m p o u n d s (A+N) is available, it appears not to be productive. The pre-positioned adjectives are either semantically modifying or restricting. The compound mésa dumbría ‘half shade’ is endocentric, whereas santinuèm ‘name day; lit. holy name’ is exocentric. The type v e r b - n o u n c o m p o u n d (V+N) is native and relatively productive. Through the verb, the noun is given the function of either direct object (verdiapòrta ‘goal keeper’ ← vardé ‘to keep’ + pòrta ‘goal’, ciuciastuèp ‘vacuum cleaner’ ← ciucé ‘to suck’ + stuèp ‘dust’) or adverbial (mëinacrëp ‘mountain guide’ ← mené ‘to guide’ + crëp ‘mountain, rock’, probably a loan translation of Germ. Bergführer). Morphologically, the verb can be interpreted as the 3rd person singular of the present indicative or the imperative of the 2nd person singular. Being a stem-stressed form, the verbal element in first position may exhibit vowel alternation compared to the stem of the endingstressed infinitive form of the verb, as visible in the examples above. Formations of this type are synthetic compounds, the verb being the governing element, the noun the governed one. These compounds exocentrically refer to a human agent or an instrument carrying out the activity denoted by the verb. The prepositions that appear in the n o u n - p r e p o s i t i o n - n o u n c o m p o u n d s (N+Prep+N) are a, da and de: chédri a culëures ‘colour pictures’ (← chédri ‘pictures’ + a + culëures ‘colours’), ciajuèl da mónt ‘mountain cheese’ (← ciajuèl ‘cheese’ + da

2686

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

+ mónt ‘mountain’), di de pàussa ‘day of rest’ (← di ‘day’ + de + pàussa ‘rest’). They are all endocentric determinative compounds consisting of head + modifier. However, loan translation from Italian can never be excluded completely, for instance in the following cases: ejàm de madurànza ‘school leaving exam’ (← esame di maturità), pónt de udùda ‘point of view’ (← punto di vista). The second noun can also be introduced by the definite article, which amalgamates into one unit with the preposition. This indicates the definiteness of the second element: iérmes dala pluèia ‘earth worms’ (← iérmes ‘worms’ + dala [da + la] + pluèia ‘rain’), muvimënt di àuti ‘traffic’ (← muvimënt ‘movement’ + di [de + i] + àuti ‘cars’). The second element can also be a verbal modifier, which then also permits the use of the final preposition per. The verb usually replaces a missing noun: chèrta per lité ‘polling card’ (← chèrta ‘card’ + per + lité ‘to vote’), flàster da taië ‘strip of plaster’ (← flàster ‘plaster’ + da + taië ‘to cut’).

3.2. Adjectival compounds This group consists almost exclusively of s y n d e t i c d e t e r m i n a t i v e c o m p o u n d s with mél ‘bad’ as the determining first element and an adjective in second position. Some of them are probably the result of borrowings from Italian, for instance, melcuntënt ‘dissatisfied’ (← mél + cuntënt ‘satisfied’), melsegùr ‘unsure’ (← mél + segùr ‘sure’). Others seem to be native formations: melntón ‘ill’ (← mél + ntón ‘healthy’), melvalíf ‘unequal’ (← mél + valíf ‘equal’). Adjectival past participle forms can also appear as second position elements: melfàt ‘badly made’ (← mél + fàt ‘made’, past part. of fé ‘make’). The few existing a s y n d e t i c c o o r d i n a t i v e c o m p o u n d s are loan translations of Italian and/or German formations: cuècen-ghielíc ‘red-yellowish’, blanch-brumët ‘white-blueish’. This group also contains formations whose elements are relational adjectives: polítich-istituzionél ‘political-institutional’, religëus-patriótich ‘religious-patriotic’.

3.3. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds are non-existent in Gardenese. There are no word-formation patterns available for this type of compound.

4. Derivation 4.1. Nominal derivation As regards d e n o m i n a l d e r i v a t i o n o f n o u n s , prefixes serve to semantically define a number of noun categories. The comitative prefix cu(n)- can be added to personal nouns: cunfrédesc ‘confreres’ (← frédesc ‘brothers’), cumëmber ‘member’ (← mëmber ‘member’). The locative prefix so- precedes place nouns: sofónz ‘underfloor’ (← fónz ‘floor’). The three allomorphs of the privative prefix, de-/des-/dej-, and the locative

148. Ladin

2687

prefix sëura- occur together with abstract nouns: devalivànza ‘inequality’ (← valivànza ‘equality’); dejunión ‘discord, conflict’ (← unión ‘concord, unity’); sëuravënta ‘domination’ (← vënta ‘victory, advance’). The denominal suffixes are employed for derivation of personal, status, place and collective nouns as well as of object terms. P e r s o n a l n o u n s : vacë ‘cowboy’ (← vàci[a] ‘cow’ + -ë); ciuliér ‘waiter’ (← ciul[é] ‘cellar’ + -iér); varizión ‘miser’ (← varízi[a] ‘miserliness’ + -ón); s t a t u s n o u n s : artejanàt ‘trade’ (← artejàn ‘tradesman’+ -àt); pluanía ‘parish’ (← pluàn ‘priest’ + -ía); p l a c e n o u n s : becaría ‘butcher’s shop’ (← bech[é] ‘butcher’ + -aría); c o l l e c t i v e n o u n s : fuiàm ‘foliage’ (← fuéi[a] ‘leaf’ + -àm); tlaparëc ‘big pile’ (← tlap ‘pile’ + -arëc); tlapéda ‘small group of people’ (← tlap ‘pile’ + -éda); brunzëi ‘coal leftovers’ (← brónz[a] ‘charcoal’ + -ëi); dentùra ‘(set of) teeth’ (← dënt ‘tooth’ + -ùra); o b j e c t t e r m s : funestréa ‘window frame, long row of windows’ (← funéstr[a] ‘window’ + -éa); dentéda ‘cogwheel’ (← dënt ‘tooth’ + -éda); vierëira ‘shop window’ (← viér[e] ‘window’ + -ëira); dlaciér ‘glacier’ (← dlàci[a] ‘ice’ + -iér); dlacín ‘ice cream’ (← dlàci[a] ‘ice’ + -ín). E v a l u a t i v e d e r i v a t i o n patterns are not really available in Gardenese. The diminutive suffixes -él/-éla, -ët/-ëta, -ín/-ína, -ùc/-ùcia, the augmentative and pejorative suffixes -àc/-àcia, -àz, -ón/-óna, -òz, -ùc are only present in a few formations, most of which date back to older versions of the language or have been borrowed from neighbouring languages: planëta ‘small terraced plain’ (← plan ‘plain’ + -ëta); scolína ‘pre-school’ (← scòl[a] ‘school’ + -ína); fanùcia ‘small pan’ (← fàn[a] ‘pan’ + -ùcia); brución ‘big nail’ (← bròci[a] ‘nail’ + -ón); buàc ‘big ox’ (← bò ‘ox’ + -àc); tambrùc ‘small, poor quality shed’ (← tàmbr[a] ‘hut’ + -ùc). Although -èra and -mënt are not genuine evaluative suffixes, in nevèra ‘snow storm’ (← nëif ‘snow’ + -èra) and salamënt ‘large hall’ ← (sàla ‘hall’ + -mënt) they give the derivatives an augmentative meaning. As for d e a d j e c t i v a l d e r i v a t i o n o f n o u n s , a series of suffixes contribute to derive quality, personal, concrete and action nouns. Q u a l i t y n o u n s : sauridànza ‘easement’ (← saurì ‘easy’ + linking consonant -d- + -ànza); lezitënza ‘diligence’ (← lezit[ënt] ‘diligent’ + -ënza); liedëza ‘freedom’ (← lièd[e] ‘free’ + -ëza); netíjia ‘cleanliness’ (← nët ‘clean’ + -íjia); pazità ‘dirt’ (← pàz[e] ‘dirty’ + -ità); sulentùm ‘loneliness’ (← sulënt ‘lonely’ + -ùm); strentùra ‘narrowness’ (← strënt ‘narrow’ + -ùra); p e r s o n a l n o u n s : bonàc ‘good-natured person’ (← bón ‘good’ + -àc); zunfídl ‘clumsy person’ (← zónf ‘clumsy’ + -ídl); grandiér ‘show-off’ (← grant ‘big’ + -iér); c o n c r e t e n o u n s : lutréa ‘silty soil’ (← lùt[e]r ‘soft’ + -éa); nouns denoting a c t i o n s : matàda ‘stupidity’ (← mat ‘stupid’ + -àda); totlaría ‘stupidity’ (← tótl ‘stupid’ + -aría). For the d e v e r b a l d e r i v a t i o n o f n o u n s Gardenese provides a large number of suffixes, making it possible to derive action, personal, agent, instrument, place, collective, quality and state nouns as well as object terms. A c t i o n n o u n s : cuinàda ‘derision’ (← cuin[é] ‘deride’ + -àda); scumenciadíva ‘initiative’ (← scumenc[é] ‘to begin’ + -a- + -diva); tratùra ‘upbringing’ (← trat[é] ‘to treat’ + -ùra); ancuntéda ‘encounter’ (← ancunt[é] ‘to encounter’ + -éda); nrescída ‘research’ (← nresc[ì] ‘to research’ + -ída); nasciùda ‘birth’ (← nàsc[er] ‘to be born’ + -ùda); cunvivënza ‘cohabitation’ (← cunvív[er] ‘to live together’ + -ënza); ntussiamënt ‘poisoning’ (← ntussi[ë] ‘to poison’ + -a- + -mënt); stritòz ‘quarrel’ (← strit[é] ‘to quarrel’ + -òz); scunànza ‘protection’ (← scun[é] ‘to protect’ + -ànza); derturazión ‘restoration’ (← dertur[é] ‘to restore’ + -a- + -zión); p e r s o n a l and a g e n t n o u n s : verdiàn ‘keeper’ (← vard[é] ‘to watch (animals)’ [-i- before the suffix perhaps in analogy to It. guardiano] + -àn); scuvridëur

2688

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

‘explorer’ (← scuvrì ‘to discover’ + -dëur); sejladrëssa ‘woman who cuts the grain’ (← sejl[é] ‘to cut the grain’ + -a- + -drëssa); gaujënt ‘person responsible for sth., cause’ (← gauj[é] ‘to cause’ + -ënt); mentídl ‘liar’ (← ment[ì] ‘to lie’ + -ídl); jmiéler ‘flatterer’ (← jmilé ‘to flatter’ + ′-er); ciancèr ‘translator’ (← cianc[é] ‘to translate’ + -èr); giajón ‘late riser’ (← giaj[ëi] ‘to brood’ + -ón); i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : juliér ‘aeroplane’ (← jul[é] ‘to fly’ + -iér); jòler ‘helicopter’ (← jul[é] ‘to fly’ + -iér); p l a c e n o u n s : nudadóia ‘swimming pool’ (← nud[é] ‘to swim’ + -a- + -adóia); purtói ‘ski-run’ (← purt[é] ‘to guide, carry’ + -ói); c o l l e c t i v e n o u n s : refudàm ‘rubbish’ (← refud[é] ‘to put aside’ + -àm); maiadíves ‘food’ (← mai[ë] ‘to eat’ + -a- + -díves); vejladùra ‘feed’ (← vejl[é] ‘to feed’ + -a- + -dùra); q u a l i t y n o u n s : daudànza ‘shame’ (← se daud[é] ‘to be ashamed’ + -ànza); straciaría ‘hardship (metaphorical)’ (← strac[é] ‘to lug (a heavy object)’ + -aría); s t a t e n o u n s : nchersciadùm ‘homesickness’ (← ncrësc[er] ‘to be homesick’ + -adùm); o b j e c t t e r m s : scincùnda ‘present, gift’ (← scinch[é] ‘to give (as a present)’ + -ùnda).

4.2. Adjectival derivation As far as d e n o m i n a l d e r i v a t i o n o f a d j e c t i v e s is concerned, the privative prefix des-/dej- and the ingressive prefix n-/m- only occur in parasynthetic derivatives (where word-formation results from the simultaneous adding of a prefix and a verbal ending to a nominal or adjectival base, cf. article 29 on parasynthesis in Romance) together with the resultative ending -à. Although this ending corresponds to that of the singular masculine past participle of 1st conjugation verbs (verbs in -é/-ë), the derivatives are not based on a verb: descrianzà ‘without manners’ (← des- + criànz[a] ‘manner’ + -à); ngrustà ‘encrusted’ (← n- + gróst[a] ‘crust’ + -à). Suffixation, particularly in order to derive r e l a t i o n a l a d j e c t i v e s , is not really native in Gardenese. Their contents are more likely expressed with prepositional phrases (cf. It. la crosta terrestre − Gar. la crósta dla tiera ‘earth’s crust; lit. crust of the earth’; It. l’energia solare − Gar. l’energía dl surëdl ‘solar energy; lit. energy of the sun’). The majority of existing relational adjectives are thus borrowings, but can be morphologically analysed: mujighél ‘musical’ (← mùjig[a] ‘music’ + -él); umanitèr ‘humanitarian’ (← umanit[à] ‘humanity’ + -èr). In contrast, various g e n t i l i c a d j e c t i v e s derived by attaching the suffixes -àn and -òt are native formations: uniejàn ‘Venetian’ (← Uniéj[a] ‘Venice’ + -àn); badiòt ‘of or relating to Badia’ (← Badí[a]) ‘Val Badia’ + -òt). In addition, there are also a few q u a l i t a t i v e a d j e c t i v e s derived from a nominal base with the suffixes -ëul, -ëus and -íf: servijëul ‘officious’ (← servísc ‘service’ + -ëul); tlinëus ‘tousled’ (← tlín[a] ‘mane’ + -ëus); ulentíf ‘willing’ (← ulent[à] ‘will’ + -íf). D e a d j e c t i v a l a d j e c t i v e s can be derived from an adjectival base with the negative prefixes des-/dej-, i-, n-/m-, the locative prefix nter- and the intensifying prefix -s, but again, they often result from loan formation: desvalíf ‘unequal’ (← valíf ‘equal’); dejurdenà ‘disorderly’ (← urdenà ‘orderly’); nfedél ‘disbelieving, unfaithful’ (← fedél ‘believing, faithful’); mpuscíbl ‘impossible’ (← puscíbl ‘possible’); iregulèr ‘irregular’ (← regulèr ‘regular’); nterladín ‘inter-Ladin’ (← ladín ‘Ladin’). Finally, the adjective sfauzà ‘faked’ (← fàuz ‘fake’) is parasynthetically derived from its base with the intensifying prefix s- and the resultative ending -à. The evaluative suffixes -át, -ejín, -ét, -íc,

148. Ladin

2689

-ín, -òt, -ulín, like the respective denominal suffixes, are not really available and occur mainly in inherited derivatives or in borrowed formations. Diminutive: fuschét ‘of dark skin colour’ (← fósch ‘black’); seculín ‘quite thin’ (← sëch ‘withered, dry’); pejorative: riàt ‘quite evil’ (← rí[e] ‘evil’); stletòt ‘quite bad’ (← stlét ‘bad’); approximativeattenuative: blanchíc ‘whitish’ (← blànch ‘white’); ducejín ‘slightly sweet’ (← dëuc ‘sweet’). For the d e v e r b a l d e r i v a t i o n o f a d j e c t i v e s Gardenese has a series of suffixes, as illustrated by the following derivatives: critighënt ‘critical’ (← critigh[é] ‘to criticize’ + -ënt); ncherscëul ‘eerie, arousing sympathy’ (← ncrësc[er] ‘to be homesick, long for somebody’ + -ëul); scarpetëus ‘fidgety’ (← scarpet[é] ‘to fidget’ + -ëus); reniér ‘weepy’ (← ren[é] ‘to weep’ + -iér); muciadíf ‘fugitive’ (← muc[é] ‘to flee’ + -íf). Gardenese has no native word-formation patterns for p a s s i v e a d j e c t i v e s. Adjectives such as plièivel ‘pliable, flexible’ (← se pli[ë] ‘to bend, give’ + -èivel) are loan translations, in this case of It. pieghevole. In Gardenese, the content of passive adjectives is usually expressed by relative clauses of the type che se lascia plië ‘which can be bent’ or with a modal infinitive like da plië; lit. ‘to bend / to be bent’ (cf. nia da plië ‘not pliable, not flexible’).

4.3. Verbal derivation For the d e n o m i n a l d e r i v a t i o n o f v e r b s Gardenese can revert to the reversive prefix des-/dej-, the ingressive prefix n-/m-, the intensifying prefix stra- and the reversive and intensifying prefix s-. These prefixes parasynthetically derive verbs of the 1st conjugation by simultaneously adding to the base the infinitive ending -é/-ë: desravisé ‘to uproot’ (← des- + ravís[a] ‘root’ + -é); splumé ‘to pluck feathers’ (← s- + plùm[a] ‘feather’ + -é); ngiaré ‘to cover with gravel’ (← n- + giàr[a] ‘gravel’ + -é); mbrucë ‘to hammer in nails’ (← m- + bròci[a] ‘nail’ + -ë); straventé ‘to blow hard (in the context of wind)’ (← stra- + vënt ‘wind’ + -é); sbujé ‘to make holes in’ (← s- + bùj[a] ‘hole’ + -é). Suffixation is achieved by attaching the suffixes -ejé, -eré, -ië, -ifiché, -isé. These add mainly factitive but also ingressive value to the verb. However, apart from a few exceptions the verbs derived with these suffixes are borrowings, although they can still be morphologically analysed. The suffix -ië is the only native one, but it does not really seem to be productive: danejé ‘to damage’ (← dann ‘damage’ + -ejé); sbecheré ju ‘to slaughter’ (← s- + bech[é] ‘butcher’ + -eré + ju ‘down’); jafië ‘to soap sb./sth.’ (← jiéf[a] ‘soap’ + -ië); marcië ‘to suppurate’ (← mèrci[a] ‘pus’ + -ië); planifiché ‘to plan’ (← plan ‘plan’ + -ifiché); categurisé ‘to categorize’ (← categur[ía] ‘category’ + -isé). Together with the ingressive prefix n- and the intensifying prefix s- the suffix -ië also parasynthetically derives factitive verbs: ntussië ‘to poison’ (← n- + tuéss[e] ‘poison’ + -ië); splaië ‘to inflict a wound’ (← s- + plé[a] ‘wound’ + -ië). A parasynthetic structure with the local prefix sot- and the infinitive ending -é of the 1st conjugation can also be observed in the derivative sotrissé ‘to underline’ (← sot- + riss[a] ‘line’ + -é). For the d e a d j e c t i v a l d e r i v a t i o n o f v e r b s the relevant prefixes, namely a-, ar-, de-/dej-/des-, n-/m-, s-, are only used in parasynthetical derivations. They are added to the base simultaneously with the verb ending of the 1st conjugation, realized as the two allomorphs -é/-ë, or, less frequently, with the ending of the 4th conjugation -ì. The prefixes yield an ingressive, sometimes also a factitive (a-, n-/m-), contrary or reversive

2690

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

(de-/dej-/des-) or intensifying meaning (s-): se agramé ‘to let oneself be intimidated’ (← se + a- + gram ‘disheartened’ + -é); (se) delidé ‘to free’ (← de- + liéd[e] ‘free’ + -é); desdurì ‘to soften’ (← des- + dur ‘hard’ + -ì); (se) ndeblì ‘to weaken, become weak’ (← n- + dëibl ‘weak’ + -ì); mplenì ‘to fill’ (← m- + plën ‘full’ + -ì); smendré ‘to make smaller’ (← s- + mënder ‘smaller’ + -é), slargë ‘to extend, enlarge’ (← s- + lèrch ‘wide’ + -ë), stlarì ‘to clarify’ ← (s- + tlèr ‘clear’ + -ì). The suffixes for this type of derivation are -ië, -ifiché, -isé. They confer ingressive-factitive meaning to the verb. The verbs derived with the suffix -ië are generally native, whereas those with the suffixes -ifiché and -isé are loanwords: ajië ‘to acidify’ (← éj[e] ‘sour’ + -ië); ntensifiché ‘to intensify’ (← ntensíf ‘intensive’ + -ifiché); sensibilisé ‘to sensitize’ (← sensíbel ‘sensitive’ + -isé). This group also includes verbs derived parasynthetically from the adjectival base with the prefixes ar- or s- and the suffix -ië: artumië ‘to moisten’ (← ar- + tùm[e] ‘moist’ + -ië), stebië ‘to render lukewarm’ (← s- + tiéb[e] ‘lukewarm’ + -ië). The prefixes involved in the d e r i v a t i o n o f d e v e r b a l v e r b s add different semantic nuances to the basic meaning of the verb: comitative (cun-), reversive (des-/des-), local (n-), temporal (pre-), iterative (re-), intensifying (stra-): cunlië ‘to join’ (← lië ‘to bind’); desfurnì ‘to undress’ (← furnì ‘to dress’); dejubedì ‘to disobey’ (← ubedì ‘to obey’); ntaië ‘to engrave sth.’ (← taië ‘to cut’); preudëi ‘to foresee’ (← udëi ‘to see’); reanimé ‘to reanimate’ (← animé ‘to animate’); stramudé ‘to dazzle’ (← mudé ‘to change’). For suffixation of deverbal verbs there is only one suffix in Gardenese, -enté, which yields causative meaning: murenté ‘(with respect to animals) let starve’ (← mur[ì] ‘die’ + -enté).

4.4. Adverbial derivation This type of derivation only concerns those adverbs that are derived with the suffix -mënter, mainly from feminine adjectival bases. Most of the adverbs of this type are loan translations from Italian, such as persunalmënter ‘personally’, veramënter ‘really’, plënamënter ‘completely, totally’, or ultimamënter ‘recently’. As for native formations, there are the quality adverbs, such as nchersceulmënter ‘terribly’ (← ncherscëul ‘terrible, eerie’ + -mënter) and the temporal adverb with added preposition da vedlamënter ‘since time immemorial’ (← da + vedla ‘old’ + -mënter).

5. Conversion 5.1. Nominal conversion D e n o m i n a l c o n v e r s i o n o f n o u n s realized by motion, i.e. by changing the gender, is not really an available word-formation type in Gardenese. The following lexemes can be seen as the result of motion: ciàza ‘serving spoon’ (smaller than the ciaz)’ − ciaz ‘trowel’; bùja ‘pit’ − busc ‘hole’; ciùfa ‘thick hair’ − ciuf ‘wisp, tuft of hair, bun’. D e a d j e c t i v a l c o n v e r s i o n o f n o u n s is available but rarely used. The following forms have already been lexicalized: (l) muciadíf ‘(the) fugitive’ (← muciadíf ‘fugi-

148. Ladin

2691

tive’); (l) pítl / (la) pítla / (i) pítli ‘(the) child’ / ‘(the) children; lit. (the) little one’ / ‘(the) little ones’ (← pítl ‘little’). Conversions of n a m e s o f i n h a b i t a n t s also belong to this group: (i) taliàni ‘(the) Italians’ (← taliàn ‘Italian’); (l) tudësch ‘German (the language)’ (← tudësch ‘German’). Converted qualitative adjectives in the neutral masculine form are part of this class as well: (l) bél ‘the beautiful’. A particular group is constituted by derivatives with the ending -à of the singular masculine past participle of 1st conjugation verbs (verbs in -é/-ë), although a respective verb is not attested: i creujéi ‘the crusaders’ (metonymically extended from sing. creujà ‘marked by a cross’) (← crëusc ‘cross’ + -à). Finally, converted adjectives whose nominal reference entity has been deleted, cannot be seen as results of a particular type of conversion. They are ellipses: (na) drëta ‘good advice’ (← drët ‘correct, right’ + -a, in expressions such as: ne n savëi na drëta ‘to be at one’s wit’s end’). The noun deleted here is probably the feminine minónga ‘opinion’. D e v e r b a l c o n v e r s i o n , most often from verbs of the 1st conjugation (verbs in -é/-ë), gives rise to nouns denoting a single action (the majority), as well as personal and quantitative nouns. Simple conversion of the stem derives a masculine noun, conversion of the stem in combination with the ending -a derives a feminine one. In newer formations the masculine gender seems to prevail. Masculine a c t i o n n o u n s : jòl ‘flight’ (← jul[é] ‘to fly’); brédl ‘cry’ (← bradl[é] ‘to cry’); cích ‘scream’ (← cigh[é] ‘to scream’). Feminine a c t i o n n o u n s : cërcia ‘taster’ (← ciarc[ë] ‘to taste’ + -a); p e r s o n a l n o u n s : sfrùnia ‘no-good’ (← sfruni[ë] ‘work slowly’ + -a); q u a n t i t a t i v e n o u n s : cumpëida ‘a large number (of)’ (← cumped[é] ‘to count’ + -a). Infinitives are also converted: (l) podejé ‘cross-country skiing’ (← podejé ‘to ski cross-country’); (l) cunlauré ‘collaboration’ (← cunlauré ‘to collaborate’). Moreover, conversion is possible of the past participle of strongly inflecting verbs of the 3rd (verbs in´ -er) and 4th conjugation (verbs in -ì), particularly its feminine form. This process permits the derivation of perfective-resultative action nouns that can also be metonymically extended: ntòrta ‘distortion’ (← ntòrjer ‘to distort’); rissa ‘laughter’ (← rí ‘to laugh’); scríta ‘transcript, inscription’ (← scrì ‘to write’). The minority of masculine forms are converted participles of 1st conjugation verbs: (l) suà ‘sweat’ (← sué ‘to sweat’), (l) crià ‘(the) creation’ (← crië ‘to create’).

5.2. Adjectival conversion Gardenese has only d e v e r b a l c o n v e r s i o n o f a d j e c t i v e s. This type of conversion has probably become available via loan formations. Most often, present participle forms of factitive verbs are converted to adjectives: faszinënt ‘fascinating’ (← faszin[é] ‘to fascinate’ + -ënt); scichënt ‘decorative’ [cf. na planta scichënta ‘decorative plant’] (← scich[é] ‘to decorate’ + -ënt), variént ‘healing’ [cf. forza variénta ‘healing power’] (← varì ‘to heal’ + -ént).

5.3. Verbal conversion Denominal and deadjectival conversion only yields 1st conjugation verbs (verbs in -é/-ë). For the other three conjugations (verbs in -ëi, ˈ-er, -ì) this word-formation type does not seem to be available.

2692

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

In cases of d e n o m i n a l c o n v e r s i o n , the entity denoted by the nominal base takes on different semantic roles in the verbal derivative: the person carrying out the action: striuné ‘to perform witchcraft, magic’ (← strión ‘magician, wizard’); the entity, from which the action starts: spidlé ‘to reflect, mirror’ (← spiédl ‘mirror’); the entity onto which something is applied/put (ornative): tacë ‘to stain’ (← tàci[a] ‘stain’); the instrument with which the action is carried out: visculé ‘to whip’ (← víscul[a] ‘whip’); the entity with which the action is compared (also metaphorically): stadiré ‘to waver’ (← stadiér[a] ‘set of scales’); the place at which the action happens: pasturé ‘to pasture’ (← pastùr[a] ‘pasture’); the entity from which something is freed (privative): scurzé ‘to bark, decorticate’ (← scòrz[a] ‘bark’); the entity that causes something: gaujé ‘to cause’ (← gàuj[a] ‘cause’); the entity that results from the action (effected): tislé ‘to be coming down with the flu’ (← tísl ‘influenza, flu’). D e a d j e c t i v a l c o n v e r s i o n allows the derivation of 1st conjugation verbs with ingressive or factitive meaning. The ingressive ones, which are unaccusative verbs, denote a change of state without external intervention, the factitive ones, which are transitive verbs, a change voluntarily caused by an external agent. For the same verb, the difference is often marked by adding the reflexive pronoun to the unaccusative variant: se sarené (su/òra) ‘to brighten up’ − sarené (su/òra) ‘to brighten up sth.’ (← sarëin ‘bright, clear’); se stancë ‘to become tired’ − stancë ‘to tire sb.’ (← stànch ‘tired’).

5.4. Adverbial conversion This group of derivatives includes only a few deadjectival adverbs that are mainly part of fixed idiomatic collocations. This type of conversion is thus not really available. The adverbial function is clearly marked by the indefinite unmarked masculine gender: stòrt ‘askew, crooked’ in cialé stòrt ‘to give an evil look’; dur ‘hard’ in lauré dur ‘to work hard’; àut ‘high’ in julé àut ‘to fly at higher game; lit. fly high’.

6. References De Leidi, Giorgio 1994 I suffissi nel friulano. Udine: Società filologica friulana. Elwert, W. Theodor 1943 Die Mundart des Fassa-Tals. Heidelberg: Winter. Grossmann, Maria and Franz Rainer (eds.) 2004 La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kovács, Johanna 2008 I suffissi nominali nei dialetti ladini centrali. Borca di Cadore: Istituto Ladin de la Dolomites [= Ph.D. dissertation, Budapest 1934]. Liver, Ricarda 1993 Surselvische Wortbildung im Spannungsfeld des romanisch-deutschen Sprachkontakts. Annalas da la Societad Retorumantscha 106: 78−90. Marcato, Carla 1986 Osservazioni sulla formazione delle parole composte in friulano. In: Günther Holtus and Kurt Ringger (eds.), Raetia antiqua et moderna. W. Theodor Elwert zum 80. Geburtstag, 449−456. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

149. Sardinian

2693

Messner, 1979 Messner, 1991

Dieter Probleme rätoromanischer Neologismen. Ladinia 3: 57−62. Dieter Die V+S-Komposita im Ladinischen. In: Johannes Kramer (ed.), Sive Padi Ripis Athesim Sev Propter Amoenum. Festschrift für Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 263−268. Hamburg: Buske. Siller-Runggaldier, Heidi 1987 Die explizite Derivation der Substantive im Grödnerischen. In: Guntram Plangg and Maria Iliescu (eds.), Akten der Theodor Gartner-Tagung (Rätoromanisch und Rumänisch) in Vill/Innsbruck 1985, 233−247. Innsbruck: Institut für Romanistik. Siller-Runggaldier, Heidi 1989 Grödnerische Wortbildung. Innsbruck: Institut für Romanistik. Siller-Runggaldier, Heidi 1992 Probleme romanischer Wortbildung, demonstriert am Beispiel einer romanischen Kleinsprache. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 108: 112−126. Siller-Runggaldier, Heidi 1994 Probleme des Ladinischen heute am Beispiel der Wortschatzerweiterung. In: Franz Lanthaler (ed.), Dialekt und Mehrsprachigkeit. Beiträge eines internationalen Symposiums (Bozen, 1993), 137−146. Meran: Alpha & Beta. Solèr, Clau 1993 Diffusion de nouvelles terminologies: Travail pratique de la Lia Rumantscha a Coire, Suisse. Terminologies nouvelles 9: 42−47. Solèr, Clau 1994 Implantation de néologismes dans une langue minoritaire et faible d’extension. Terminologies nouvelles 12: 58−64. Stengaard, Birte 1983 Sur les groupes nominaux juxtaposés dans les idiomes romanches. Studia Neophilologica 55: 71−75. Videsott, Paul 1994 Wortbildung im Ladin Dolomitan. Diploma thesis, University of Innsbruck. Videsott, Paul 1996 Wortschatzerweiterung im Ladin Dolomitan. Ladinia 20: 163−173.

Heidi Siller-Runggaldier, Innsbruck (Austria)

149. Sardinian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication References

2694

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Abstract The aim of this article is to give a description of the morphological processes of the Sardinian language. Sardinian shows seven word-formation processes: composition, suffixation, parasynthesis, prefixation, conversion, backformation, and reduplication. I consider these processes from a sociolinguistic point of view, showing how this perspective can lead us to better understand different synchronic results in terms of higher or lower productivity of specific word-formation rules in standard and non-standard Romance languages.

1. Introduction Sardinia is an Italian island situated in the Western part of the Mediterranean Sea. According to Virdis (1988), the Sardinian language shows at least three macro-varieties: Logudorese, the most prestigious variety, spoken in the North-Western region; Nuorese, the most conservative one, spoken in the Central mountainous region; and Campidanese, the most diffused variety, spoken in the South. Each of these three macro-varieties can be further distinguished into thirteen subvarieties and, besides them, nowadays, scholars consider a fourth minor but autonomous variety named “Arborense” (cf. Putzu 2005: 151, 2011). Sardinian is one of the most studied Romance languages because of its archaic and conservative character (cf. Wagner 1997), but it still shows the same problems for data analysis as all languages which lack a standard variety and are without continuous written documentation (apart from Sardinian, one could also mention Sicilian or Corsican, as opposed to standard languages like Italian, French, Spanish, etc.; cf. Pinto 2012). In particular, generalizations are less easy to make in non-standard languages, because of their high degree of variation. Despite this drawback, Sardinian occupies a privileged position thanks to its Medieval golden past which left important documentation (e.g., the administrative texts known as the “Condaghi”). Furthermore, Sardinian has had a considerable lexicographic production since the beginning of the 19th century (cf. Porru 1981 [1832]; Spano 2004 [1851]; Casu 2002 [1934−47]; Wagner 2008 [1960−64]; Puddu 2000). In the beginning, most investigations were carried out in the fields of phonetics (cf. Paulis 1984) and the lexicon (cf. Paulis 1995−96), but recently morphology has begun to receive more attention (among others, cf. Loporcaro 2003, 2012), while syntax is still awaiting a deep analysis after Jones (1993). Regarding Sardinian word-formation, since Wagner (1952) we have had no systematic work on this issue until Pinto (2011). However, during this same period, we can find some references to Sardinian wordformation in general works (cf. Butler 1971; Loi Corvetto 1988; Blasco Ferrer 1988; Grandi 2003, 2005; Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011). As argued, a sociolinguistic perspective is fundamental (cf. Mathiot and Rissel 1996; Pinto 2012). In fact, if we look at the extralinguistic history of the Romance languages, we discover that only some of these show Dardano’s (1988: 51) “cultural affinity”, and this is well reflected in their word-formation systems which show different rules according to their sociolinguistic status (notice, for example, the absence of some affixes such as -ione or negative in- in non-standard Romance varieties, cf. Pinto 2004, 2012).

149. Sardinian

2695

In addition, the sociolinguistic perspective is also useful for analysing contact (cf. Matras 2009; Pinto 2012). The Sardinian lexicon has been influenced by several languages (Phoenician-Punic, Byzantine-Greek, Old Tuscan, Catalan, Spanish and Italian). Many patterns have been taken over from Catalan and Spanish. In the case of Italian, on the other hand, we generally observe a substitution of complex words rather than copies on a native base (cf. Pinto 2012). However, the influence of Contemporary Italian on Sardinian has only been partially studied (cf. Loi Corvetto 1988; Rindler Schjerve 1993; Dettori 1998; Paulis 2008), and therefore we are still waiting for systematic work on this topic. In this article I shall try to give a reliable overview of Sardinian word-formation in all its aspects, based mainly on Pinto (2012). In particular, after giving a description of all the Sardinian word-formation processes focusing on peculiar features (section 2), I will describe the main processes selecting more productive and/or more frequent rules (sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Actually, the terms productive and frequent are strictly linked to the kind of sources used: the former term refers to data coming from different sources (lexicographic; lit.rary, administrative, speaker competence), while the latter refers to data extracted exclusively from lexicographic sources (for further details, cf. Štichauer 2009). On the whole, however, the data considered here come chiefly from lexicographic sources, namely Wagner (2008) and Puddu (2000) and especially from Logudorese, Campidanese and Nuorese (from now: Log., Camp., Nuor.). Examples are generally reported in the original source characters and if necessary, IPA conversion is given for some symbols, cf. the legend below: i̯ ɡ

[j] [γ]

y s˙

[j] [z]

ƀ ž

[β] [ʒ]

č ts

[ʧ] [ts]

đ [ð] dz [dz]

ḍ ϑ

[ɖ] [θ]

ğ

[ʤ]

2. General overview Sardinian shows at least seven word-formation processes: composition, prefixation, suffixation, parasynthesis, conversion, backformation and reduplication. According to Hall (2000: 542), parasynthesis can also be interpreted as “defective circumfixation” in IndoEuropean languages; for further details see Pinto (2011: 116) and article 29 on parasynthesis in Romance. In Sardinian, prefixation is the least productive process, whereas nominal suffixation is the most productive one, followed by verbal parasynthesis. Furthermore, nominal and adjectival composition show a high frequency besides reduplication and backformation (cf. Pinto 2012). In terms of their relationships with the other Romance languages, Sardinian wordformation rules can be classified as follows: a) WFRs in common with all Romance languages, e.g., the outcome of Lat. -tore, e.g., Log., Nuor. -đore, Camp. -đori; b) WFRs shared with some conservative Romance languages, e.g., N-i+A adjectival compounds, which it has in common with Spanish, Corsican and Southern Italian dialects, or the lack of the adverbial -mente suffix, which it has in common with Romanian and, again, with Southern Italian dialects; c) WFRs in common with non-standard Romance varieties,

2696

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

e.g., a reduced number of prefixes; d) language-specific WFRs which will be described in the next paragraph. The language-specific WFRs which constitute Sardinian peculiarities are: a) Log., Nuor. -indzu, -ondzu, Camp. -inğu, -onğu (< Lat. -oneus, -ineus), used in Sardinian to form action nouns instead of evaluative and relational words (e.g., Log. filare ‘to spin’, Camp. filai ‘id.’ → Log. filondzu ‘spinning’, Camp. filonğu ‘id.’ vs. It. amaro ‘bitter’ → amarogno ‘bitterish’); b) Log., Nuor. -ale, Camp. -ali (< Lat. -alis), used preferably to form nouns instead of adjectives (e.g., Log. kondzale, Camp. konğali ‘pitcher’; c) Log., Nuor., Camp. -inu (< Lat. -īnus) without diminutive value, which is generally expressed by -eḍḍu (e.g., Camp. piččokku → piččokkeḍḍu vs. It. ragazzo → ragazzino); d) a large amount of reduplication, mostly considered to be a Mediterranean feature (e.g., Log. tsiki tsiki ‘very thin (referring to a kind of flour)’, Camp. arrubiu arrubiu ‘very red’). Sardinian generally lacks neoclassical compounds as a natural consequence of its sociolinguistic condition. Nevertheless, in recent times some neoclassical words from Italian have begun to enter through language-contact (cf. neo- in neosardista ‘new supporter of a Sardinian political party’ in Loi Corvetto 1988: 858). In addition, as mentioned above, we note an increasing substitution nowadays of complex words from Italian for complex words in Sardinian, but only rarely do we observe Italian rules being copied (e.g., limbista ‘linguist’, limbismu ‘linguism’ in Puddu 2000). On the other hand, in the past, we have recorded some suffix copies from Tuscan, Catalan and Spanish (cf. Pinto 2012). Finally, as far as the geographical distribution of rules is concerned, Sardinian wordformation follows Virdis’ (1988) bipartition between North and South Sardinia (basically the same rules are found in Logudorese and in Nuorese, in opposition to Campidanese) as well as a less frequent tripartition (different rules in Logudorese, Nuorese and Campidanese; cf. Pinto 2012).

2.1. Morphology vs. syntax Establishing a clear distinction between compounds and phrasal expressions still remains an unsolved problem today: from Bloomfield (1933) to Lieber and Štekauer (2009), scholars have underlined the difficulty of separating morphology from syntax especially regarding such ambiguous data as It. capostazione ‘stationmaster’, Lat. agricola ‘farmer’ in opposition to It. ferro da stiro ‘iron’, Fr. chemin de fer ‘railway’, Log., Nuor., Camp. maístu ’e linna, ‘carpenter; lit. master of wood’. In Sardinian, the levels of morphology and syntax often match. Evidence for this can mainly be found in composition and reduplication. In fact, there are many compounds in fieri, e.g., syntactic constructions with the potential to become compounds, e.g., Camp. erƀi̯ éntu ‘pellitory; lit. grasswind’ vs. Log. erƀa’e béntu, ‘id.; lit. grass of wind’, along with reduplications which function as part of a syntactic construction (e.g., Camp. camminai muru muru ‘to walk along the wall; lit. walk wall wall’, and as compounds, e.g., Log. kantaganta ‘cicada; lit. sing sing’). Thus, it is preferable to imagine a continuum in which there are different steps between compounds and syntactic phrases (cf. Olsen 2000: 899; Dressler 2006: 30).

149. Sardinian

2697

2.2. Compounding vs. derivation Sardinian does not show any particular demarcation problems in this field, because of the lack of neoclassical compounds and of free prefixes (cf. Pinto 2011: 55).

3. Composition Composition is a vital morphological process in Sardinian, especially in some specific lexical fields (such as animal and plant names as well as nicknames). Nominal and adjectival compounds are very frequent in Sardinian. In particular, among adjectival compounds, the [N-i+A]A type with a linking element is particularly productive (cf. Pinto, Paulis and Putzu 2012). As peculiar compound types, beside the N-i+A compounds, I have recorded reduplicated-constituent compounds (e.g., Log. luɡeluɡe ‘firefly; lit. light light’) which are dealt with in section 7 along with other reiteration phenomena. On the whole, Sardinian shows mainly determinative compounds, but generally their meaning is not compositional; we often only have a determinative structure with the exocentric use of naming an entity possessing the attribute being expressed (e.g., Log. mèle ’e matta, Camp. mèli ’e matta ‘resin; lit. honey of tree’; cf. Olsen 2000: 908). Copulative compounds are too rare to be considered in this work (I just give one example of them: Log. [[babbu]N[tziu]N]A ‘reverential way of addressing old people; lit. dad uncle’).

3.1. Nominal compounds The most frequent nominal Sardinian compound types are the following: N+N, N-i+N, N+de+N, N+A, V+N, V-i+N. I have decided to also include syntagmatic compounds in this section because of the treatment of the preposition de, which suffers a reduction process along the cline de > e > i > 0̸. There are evident relationships between structures with or without this syntactic element, as shown in (1): (1)

a. N+de+N > b. N+e+N > c. N-e+N > d. N-i+N> e. N+N: a. b. c. d. e.

Log. Log. Log. Log. Log.

lèppore de ardzola mèle ’e matta peđrelinna (< peđr(a) ’e linna) aliƀeḍḍe (< al(a) ’e pedde) murufossu

‘lapwing; lit. hare of threshing floor’ ‘resin; lit. honey (o)f wood’ ‘fossil; lit. stone (of ) wood’ ‘bat; lit. wing(-i ‘of’) skin’ ‘the edge of the ditch; lit. wall (of) ditch’

We should note that the preposition de has more than one meaning (‘of, for, at’) in Sardinian, in contrast to the corresponding Italian preposition di ‘of’. In addition, according to Kampers-Manhe (2001), the tendency to lose this syntactic element shown in (1a− e) is evidence that a compound can also function without it, as generally happens.

2698

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

As regards the other nominal compounds, the N+A type without the linking vowel -i- is mainly endocentric (e.g., prióɡu láđu ‘crab louse; lit. louse flat’), and sometimes shows a suffixed adjective (e.g., króƀu ambiḍḍáyu lit. ‘crow eel(er)’). Often, one or even both constituents are metaphoric (genti arrubia ‘flamingos; lit. people red’, ispađalukente ‘dragonfly; lit. sword shining’), making analysis complicated as rightly underlined by many recent studies (among others, cf. Grzega 2009). Finally, for the V+N type we should point out that thematic-vowel adjustment rules are partially involved in Logudorese but never in Campidanese (in contrast to Italian, cf. section 3.1.2).

3.1.1. Determinative compounds In this paragraph I shall give an outline of the main determinative endocentric and exocentric nominal compounds. According to Scalise and Guevara (2006), the formal and the semantic head in endocentric compounds should coincide, as in Camp. erƀi̯ éntu ‘pellitory; lit. grass of wind’; while in exocentric compounds this condition is not fulfilled, as in Log. aliƀéḍḍe ‘bat; lit. wing of skin’, since the subject of the predication is external. In (2) and (3) I give some other examples: (2)

Endocentric (the underlined word corresponds to the head): Log., Camp. maístu (de) pánnu → maistu’e ƀánnu ‘tailor; lit. master of cloth’

(3)

Log.

péđra fítta → peđravítta ‘(archaelogical) menhir; lit. stone stuck and sharp’

Log.

póḍḍiɡe mánnu

Camp.

díđu mánnu → diđu mánnu ‘thumb; lit. finger big’

→ poḍḍiɡe mánnu

Exocentric: Nuor.

páne (de) kórra → pan’e kórra ‘mushroom; lit. bread for carrion crow’

Log.

bátte(re) límba → battilímba ‘madder; lit. beat tongue’

Nuor.

kúkkuru látu → kukkuriláta ‘chrysanthemum; lit. head large’

Log.

fúste árƀu → fustiárƀu ‘poplar; lit. trunk white’ línna árƀu → linnárƀu ‘poplar; lit. wood white’

Camp. Camp.

línna arrúƀiu ‘yew; lit. wood red’

→ linnarrúƀiu

149. Sardinian

2699

Sardinian has a large number of exocentric compounds and, according to Oniga (1992: 108), this is a conservative feature of the Indo-European languages. Nevertheless, exocentricity has recently been described as a “non-unified phenomenon” (cf. Lieber 2009: 100) difficult to classify (cf. Scalise and Guevara 2006: 192), mainly because of the complex extralinguistic aspects involved (cf. Grzega 2009).

3.1.2. V+N type This compound type is very productive, as in other Romance languages. As it is well known, most scholars agree on its exocentricity. I should like to point out another peculiarity in Sardinian dialects in contrast to Italian. While in Italian we generally have a thematic vowel adjustment rule for verbs belonging to the 2nd conjugation (e.g., It. spremere vs. spremiagrumi), this never happens in Campidanese (cf. Camp. úmpriri ‘to fill’ vs. umpriɡúƀa ‘funnel; lit. fill barrel’) and only partially in Logudorese (cf. Log. kòkere ‘to cook’ vs. koɡeƀètta ‘roasting jack; lit. cook meat’ and kopèrrere ‘to cover’ vs. koƀerribánka ‘carpet for covering a settle; lit. cover settle’). In (4) I give some examples of the three main V+N types according to the final vowel of their first constituent: (4)

a. Log., Nuor. ispuliɡadénte, Camp. ispuliɡadénti ‘toothpick; lit. clean tooth’ b. Log., Nuor. koɡeƀétta vs. Camp. umpriɡúba c. Log., Nuor. bokibábbu ‘parricidal; lit. kill father’ vs. Camp. bočibábbu ‘a kind of snail’

In (4a−c), we can once again notice how the rules follow Virdis’ (1988) bipartition (cf. section 2, and Pinto 2012). Furthermore, again in (4b), we can appreciate the regularity of voicing which characterises Sardinian compounding (e.g., koɡeƀetta ← koɡe + petta, umpriɡuƀa ← umpri+kuƀa) in contrast to Italian (e.g., It. spargi[s]ale ← spargi + sale in Bisetto 2004: 33).

3.2. Adjectival compounds Adjectival compounds are preferably formed through the N-i+A structure. As we have seen, we should not confuse the N-i+A structure with the other two types mentioned above, namely N-i+N and V-i+N, where the -i- is, respectively, either a residual preposition or a thematic vowel (in Campidanese) which may change to -i- (in Logudorese). The N-i+A structure is one of the most frequent ones in Sardinian word-formation, at least in Logudorese and Nuorese, as well as in Northern Campidanese, also known as “Arborense” (cf. section 1). Furthermore, this structure has become a model attracting other formations into its orbit (e.g., binukottu lit. ‘wine cooked’ > binikottu, cf. Pinto, Paulis and Putzu 2012). One of the particular features of this structure regards inflection: Spanish and Sardinian mark gender and number on the right, while “similar” exocentric Italian compounds, but without the linking element, do not mark inflection either on the right or on the left:

2700 (5)

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance Sp. un muchacho boquiabierto, unas niñas pelirrojas, Log. unu omine ankimannu, cussos omines ankimannos, una femina ankimanna, cussas feminas ankimannas vs. It. It.

un/dei pellerossa, una/delle pellerossa un/una gambacorta, dei/delle gambacorta (cf. Pfister and Schweickard 1979 s. v. camba)

For further details on N-i+A compounds and exocentricity, cf. Fábregas (2004), Scalise and Guevara (2006), Pinto, Paulis and Putzu (2012).

4. Derivation In order of frequency, derivation is mainly represented by suffixation (mostly to form nouns), parasynthesis (chiefly to form verbs) and only marginally by prefixation. On the whole, I can count about 60 nominal and adjectival suffixes, but only 22 can be considered to be very frequent. In addition, I have recorded 10 verbal suffixes, only one of which is very frequent. As regards parasynthesis, I have recorded about 46 “circumfixes” (cf. Rainer 2004: 1706), but only 5 are frequent and of these only 3 are very productive. Finally, prefixation only shows three productive prefixes, mainly involved in parasynthesis and rarely applied to verbal bases. In particular, I should note that, despite the high number of prefixed loanwords especially from the Ibero-Romance superstrate, none of these have produced native neologisms (cf. Pinto 2012). On the contrary, suffixation shows some significant interference: 4 suffixes have been copied from Old Tuscan (-ayu2, -ittu2), Spanish and Catalan (-eri, -eṡa, and in part also -iϑϑu2), but only one of these is extremely productive in both feminine and masculine gender forms (-eri, -era). Notice that Log., Camp. -ittu2 (varr. -éttu) (< It. -etto, Cat., Sp. -et, -ito) and Log. -ayu2 (< Old Tusc./It. -aio), should be distinguished from other two homophonous suffixes, respectively, Log. -íttu1, Nuor. -íttu, Camp. -íttsu (< Lat. -īcĭus; cf. section 4.2) and Log. -áɡu (var. -áyu1), Nuor. -ákru, Camp. -áɡu (< Lat. -āclum). As anticipated in section 1, I shall outline only the most frequent and productive derivative rules; for further details, both diachronic and synchronic, cf. Pinto (2011: 55− 136).

4.1. Nominal derivation Nouns are mainly formed by denominal and deverbal suffixes and only secondarily by deadjectival suffixes. In the next three paragraphs I shall illustrate these according to their main semantic functions (personal, collective, agent and place). I cannot consider status nouns because they are not so widespread and are generally borrowings from Italian (Camp. assessorau < It. assessorato ‘councillorship’).

149. Sardinian

2701

Evaluative suffixes are not used very much in Sardinian, so they will be described at the end of this section (cf. section 4.1.4).

4.1.1. Denominal nouns According to our chief sources (Puddu 2000; Wagner 2008), the most frequent denominal suffixes for forming nouns are: Log., Nuor., Camp. -ađa (< Lat. -ata); Log., Nuor. -ale (var. -are), Camp. -ali (var. -ari) (< Lat. -alis); Log., Nuor. -amene (var. -amine), Camp. -amini (< Lat. -amen); Log. -ardzu, Nuor. -ari̯ u, Camp. -arğu (var. -aržu, -ažu) (< Lat. -arius); Log., Nuor. -adza, Camp. -alla (< Lat. -alia); Log., Nuor., Camp. -eri (< Sp. -ero, Cat. -er); Log., Nuor., Camp. -ia (var. -iu1) (< Lat. -ia); Log., Nuor. -ile (var. -ule), Camp. -ili (var. -íri) (< Lat. -īlis); Log. -imene (var. -imine), Camp. -imini (< -imen). In (6a−e) I give some examples to illustrate semantic categories expressed by each of these: (6)

a. Personal nouns Nuor. bángu ‘butcher’s workbench’ Camp. braƀèi ‘sheep’ Log., Nuor. krae ‘key’ Camp. karražu ‘mess’

→ → → →

bangárdzu ‘butcher’ braƀaɡážu ‘shepherd’ kraéri ‘guardian of the key’ karražéri ‘bungler’

b. Collective nouns Camp. fožíli ‘fireplace’

→ fožiláđa ‘a number of chatting women’ Log. istrándzu ‘stranger or guest’ → istrandzía ‘a number of strangers or guests’ Log., Camp. fémina ‘woman’ → Log. feminádza, Camp. feminálla ‘a number of women’ Camp. óssu ‘bone’ → ossámini ‘a number of bones’ Log. krástula ‘gossip woman’ → krastulímine ‘a number of gossiping women’

c. Instrument nouns Log. kanterdzu ‘cheek’ Log. tsóu ‘nail’

→ kanterdzále ‘cheek strap’ → tsoèra ‘receptacle to keep nails’

d. Place nouns Log. lánde ‘acorn’ Log. pádza ‘straw’ Camp. bákka ‘cow’

→ landáre ‘oak wood’ → padzárdzu ‘barn’ → bakkíli ‘enclosure for cows’

In Contemporary Sardinian, albeit rarely, some rules are found in all Sardinian varieties: this is the case of -eri, which has become the most productive personal denominal noun suffix, also very frequent in the feminine version in the formation of instrument nouns (cf. (6a) and (6c) above; for further details, cf. Pinto 2012). Competing rules often help to better understand functions and frequency. For instance, in the above examples, beside Log. istrandzía we also have Log. istrandzína and istrandzúmene, but only the former is used more frequently.

2702

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns As stated in section 4.1, deadjectival noun suffixes are the least frequent. Here I report the ones generally used to form quality nouns: Log., Nuor., Camp. -eṡa (< Sp. -eza, Cat. -esa), Log., Nuor., Camp. -ia (var. -iu1) (< Lat. -ia), Log., Nuor. -ore, Camp. -ori (< Lat. -or(e)) and Log., Nuor., Camp. -(đ)ura, which is mostly productive in deverbal nouns. These suffixes are often in competition in one and the same variety (e.g., Log. karkèṡa ‘density’, Log. kalkúra ‘id.’; Log. diliɡía ‘delicacy’, Log. diliɡèṡa ‘id.’), or in different varieties (e.g., Log. landzèṡa ‘thinness’, Camp. lanğòri ‘id.’). Adjectives are rarely bases of derivations in Sardinian, but they are frequent outcomes of word-formation processes (chiefly conversion and composition).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns The most frequent suffixes forming deverbal nouns are: Log., Nuor., Camp. -ađa (< Lat. -ata); Log., Nuor. -(đ)ore, Camp. -(đ)ori (< Lat. -tor(e)); Log., Nuor. -(đ)ordzu (var. -(t/ đ)ori̯ u), Camp. -(đ)orğu (var. -(đ)rožu) (< Lat. -torius); Log., Nuor., Camp. -(đ)ura (< Lat. -ura); Log., Nuor. -indzu, Camp. -inğu (< Lat. -ineus); Log., Nuor., Camp. -mentu (< Lat. -mentum); Log., Nuor. -ondzu, Camp. -onğu (< Lat. -oneus). In (7 a−d) I show some examples of their functions: (7)

a. Action nouns Log. abbuḍḍare ‘to fill up one’s stomach’ → abbuḍḍáđa ‘food binge’ Log. ispeđri̯ are ‘to grind the first time with a new grindstone’ → ispeđri̯ ađúra ‘flour of the first grinding’ Log. mòlere ‘to mill’ → molíndzu ‘milling’ Log. illimbare ‘to malign’ → illimbamentu ‘the act of maligning’ Camp. marrai ‘to dig’ → marrónğu ‘digging’ b. Agent nouns Log. messare, Camp. messai ‘to harvest’ → messađòre, messađòri ‘harvester’ c. Instrument nouns Log. sulare ‘to blow’ → sulađòre ‘bellows’ Log. frobbíre ‘to clean’ → frobbiđórdzu ‘rag’ d. Place nouns Camp. furri̯ ái ‘to come back (home)’ → furri̯ ađróžu ‘shepherd’s hut’

149. Sardinian

2703

As it is well known, we can classify action nouns according to several specific functions such as ‘specific event’ (e.g., abbuḍḍáđa in (7a)) or ‘result of an action’ (e.g., molíndzu in (7a) cf. Gaeta 2004: 339). Furthermore, a remarkable aspect regards their derivational bases, which in Sardinian are very often parasynthetic verbs (e.g., illimbamentu in (7a); on theoretical implication cf. Gaeta 2004: 319). The most productive “agent” suffix in contemporary Sardinian, -đore/-đori (e.g., Log. kérrere ‘to want’ → kerridóre ‘someone who is wilful’ in Puddu 2000), is also used for instrument nouns (e.g., sulađòre in (7c)), confirming a widespread feature of this suffix (cf. Booij 1986 and article 74 on agent and instrument nouns). In addition, the outcomes of Latin -torius are very frequent in all Sardinian varieties (besides furri̯ ađróžu in (7d), cf. Log. karminađórdzu ‘place for carding wool’).

4.1.4. Evaluative categories In a typological perspective, according to Grandi (2003), Sardinian belongs to “type A languages” which present diminutives (mainly expressed by -eḍḍu < Lat. -ellus, e.g., Log. pudzòne ‘bird’ → pudzonéḍḍu ‘a baby bird’), but not augmentatives (lepori mannu ‘big hare’, not *lepor-one, cf. Grandi 2005; Putzu 2005). In addition, the pejorative value is also rare in Sardinian, which is generally expressed by using diminutives ironically: Camp. belližeḍḍa lit. ‘beautiful-DIM.’, which in certain contexts acquires the opposite meaning ‘ugly’ (cf. Lavinio 1990). Often, the suffix -eḍḍu is preceded by an interfix, as in belližeḍḍa, where we have the most frequent Sardinian interfix -iž- (variant of -ig-); cf. Merlini Barbaresi (2004: 277) regarding the pragmatic uses of interfixes. Under the Italian influence we note some phonetic changes. Log. -attu (< Lat. -aceus) changed into -attsu through the influence of It. -accio (e.g., Log. kaḍḍattsu ‘a bad horse’). There is also a case of morphological Italian interference, viz. the introduction of -one, often in combination with other suffixes, e.g., Camp. trunkonattsu ‘fat’. Probably a reduced use of evaluative suffixes is a consequence of expressing some values by other processes, in particular reduplication: Camp. beni beni ‘very well; lit. well well’, Log., Camp. longu longu ‘very long; lit. long long’ (a sort of intensiveaugmentative), Log. tsiki tsiki ‘very thin’ (a sort of intensive-diminutive).

4.2. Adjectival derivation As has already been said, adjectives are not so widespread in Sardinian. Sardinian shows at least four frequent denominal adjectival suffixes: Log., Nuor., Camp. -oṡu (< Lat. -osus) and -uđu (< Lat. -utus), forming qualitative adjectives: Log. bèna ‘spring (of water)’ → benóṡu ‘muddy’; Camp. kórğu ‘skin’ → krožúđu ‘having thick and hard skin’; Log., Nuor., Camp. -inu (< Lat. -īnus) and ˈ-inu (< Lat. -ĭnus), forming relational adjectives: Log. élige ‘oak’ → eligínu ‘oaken’; Log. kórru ‘horn’ → kórrinu ‘of horn’. As I have remarked in section 4.1.4, Lat. -īnus has not developed a diminutive meaning in Sardinian, even though according to Loi (1988) -inu has begun to acquire this value through Italian influence.

2704

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Among deverbal adjectival suffixes, we can record an interesting particularity of Log. -ittu1, Nuor. -ittu, Camp. -ittsu (< Lat. -icius), which can be applied to an infinitive base as in the following examples: Camp. imbistiri ‘to besiege’ → imbistiríttsu ‘nosey’, Camp. pèndiri ‘to hang’ → pendiríttsu ‘hanging’ (similar cases contrast with the morphological universal “derivation inside inflection” (Booij 2000: 366; see also Rainer 1996).

4.3. Verbal derivation As mentioned in section 4, verbs are mainly obtained by parasynthesis, suffixation and very rarely by prefixation. Verbal parasynthesis and verbal prefixation involve the same prefixes which, as I showed in Pinto (2005), are the only three productive ones. These are Log., Nuor., Camp. a(d)- (< Lat. a-/ad-), Log., Nuor., Camp. in- (var. il-, im-, ir- only spatial-conceptual) (< Lat. in-), and Log., Nuor. is- (var. il-, im-, in-, ir-), Camp. s- (var. š-) (< Lat. ex-, dis-).

4.3.1. Denominal verbs Denominal verbs are obtained first of all by parasynthesis and secondly by suffixation. The former are described in the next paragraph, while for the latter we should just notice that they are almost exclusively formed by one suffix, namely Log., Nuor. -are, Camp. -ai (e.g., Log. mádzu, Camp. mallu ‘mall’ → madzare, mallai ‘to crush, beat’, Nuor. fémina ‘woman’ → feminare ‘to go with women (in a negative sense)’; Camp. ažíu ‘nuisance’ → aži̯ ai ‘to be bored’). Deadjectival verbs, on the other hand, are less frequent. The most frequent denominal “circumfixes” for forming verbs are: Log., Nuor., Camp. a(d)-...-are/ai, in-...-are/-ai, and (i)s-…-are/-ai. According to Grossmann (1994) and Iacobini (2004), the meanings expressed by these “circumfixes” can be classified into two macro-categories, ingressive (a(d)-...-are/ai and in-...-are/-ai) and egressive ((i)s-…-are/-ai), both susceptible to further specification. In (8) and (9) I will give some examples of these: (8)

a. Ingressive Log. bráya ‘embers’ → abbrayare ‘to become embers’ Camp. brúnku ‘snout’ → abbrunkaiṡì ‘to scowl’ Log. korína ‘anger’ → inkorinare ‘to become angry’ Camp. féli ‘gall’ → infelaiṡì ‘to become furious’ b. Egressive Log. lána ‘wool’ → illanare ‘to shear the flock’ Camp. bòtta ‘boot’ → ṡbottaiṡì ‘to take off one’s boots’

Egressive and ingressive verbs are often the bases of paradigmatic reversative oppositions as in (9):

149. Sardinian (9)

Camp. Camp. Log.

2705 akkukkurai ‘to fill up to the border’ ↔ skukkurai ‘to skim’ appoḍḍai ‘to stick’ ↔ spoḍḍi̯ ai ‘to unstick’ impoƀiḍḍare ‘to take possession of’ ↔ ispoƀiḍḍare ‘to dispossess, deprive’

4.3.2. Deverbal verbs A certain degree of prefix productivity is involved in the derivation of deverbal verbs. In general, however, prefixes are rare in Sardinian and speakers generally have some problems in recognizing them (cf. Pinto 2012). As a matter of fact, the increment of prefixes in the Romance languages occurred late in history (especially from the 19th century onwards), mainly through the influence of Greek, Latin or French and through written texts. This process involved only a part of the Romance languages (the ones which became official national languages) and excluded the Romance varieties with a lesser degree of development such as Sardinian, Sicilian, Corsican, etc. (for further details, cf. Pinto 2004 and 2012). The only three productive prefixes of Sardinian, (a(d)-, in- (only in its spatial-conceptual use) and (i)s-, are preferably used in parasynthesis to form verbs (cf. section 4.3.1), but sometimes they can also contribute to give some specific meanings to verbal bases: ‘intensive’ (e.g., Log. barri(ɡ)are ‘to load’ → abbarriɡare ‘to press’), reiterative-intensive (e.g., Log. paṡare ‘to rest’ → impaṡare ‘to make a break’), ‘reversative’ (e.g., Camp. kroƀai ‘to pair’ → Camp. skroƀai ‘to separate’) and very rarely ‘negative’ (Log. kunkordare ‘to agree’ ↔ iskunkordare ‘to disagree’; for further details, cf. Pinto 2005).

4.4. Adverbial derivation First of all, I should underline that Sardinian does not show any presence of the -mente suffix in forming adverbs (in contrast to Italian, where it is very productive: dolcemente, lentamente, etc.; cf. Ricca 2004: 472). Sardinian shares this non-occurrence of -mente with Romanian and Southern Italian dialects (cf. Tekavčić 1980: § 829). However, this suffix has been present especially in borrowings from Italian since the Middle Ages without giving rise to a truly Sardinian pattern (cf. antiquamente in the “Statuti Sassaresi”, an administrative text written in Logudorese in 1316; cf. abitualmente in Casu 2002). There are at least three very frequent processes for the formation of adverbs and the expression of adverbial functions in Sardinian, but none of these represents a derivational process. These processes involve reduplication (e.g., fattuvattu ‘sometimes’ ← fattu ‘done’) as well as the specific use of syntactic constructions with the gerund (e.g., andai currendi lit. ‘to go running’) or with deverbal nouns preceded by the preposition a and the feminine definite article sa (e.g., Log. a s’abbettiada ‘furiously’, Camp. a s’isbentiada ‘absently’). In section 7, I attempt a partial classification of reduplication for which, unfortunately, no systematic specific study has yet been made.

2706

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

5. Conversion Following Bauer (2004: 36−37), I adopt a restricted definition of conversion; as a matter of fact, I classify a word-formation process as a process of “conversion” if there is a change of word-class without any change of form (cf. the English form empty which can be an adjective, a verb and a noun). Therefore, in Sardinian we note the following very frequent cases of conversion: [X]PP → A, [N−i+A]A → N, [V+N]N → A. According to Scalise (1994) and Thornton (2004: 526), a past participle cannot always be converted (e.g., It. molto educato vs. *molto mangiato). In Sardinian, we observe a very high frequency of past participles from parasynthetic verbs which express a change of state (e.g., Log. iskonkáđu, Camp. skonkáu lit. ‘something with the extreme part cut off; fig. forgetful’) confirming Rainer (1989: 64−67) and Bisetto (1994: 71−72). Regarding conversion in compounding, we observe that adjectives and nouns can often be converted (e.g., merula bicchigroga ‘blackbird; lit. blackbird beak-yellow’ → sa bicchigroga ‘the blackbird’). Generally this kind of “ellipsis” (cf. Blank 2004) produces labels to form animal names (e.g., Log. peiɡánu ‘fox; lit. foot grey’), plants (e.g., Log. kambiruja ‘fumitory; lit. stem red’) or nicknames (e.g., Camp. krastaƀiƀittsíris ‘pedantic; lit. cut locusts’. On V+N used as adjectives, cf. Ricca (2005: 467).

6. Backformation As other non-standard Romance languages, Sardinian, especially in formal texts, often forms action nouns through backformation (cf. Pinto 2012), in contrast to the standard Romance languages which prefer to use suffixation. As matter of fact, in Sardinian the outcome of Lat. -tione is generally absent: Log., Camp. isclamu ‘exclamation (part of speech)’ vs. It. esclamazione ‘id.’, cf. Puddu (2008: 117); Camp. atobiu ‘meeting’ ← atobiai ‘to meet’; It. approvazione vs. Camp. approvu, in which the rule is extended to an Italian borrowing, or It. associazione, which becomes in Camp. assotziu. According to Dressler (2000: 583), these kinds of formation can be analysed as subtractions, if they show a high productivity in synchrony. On the other hand, according to Thornton (2004: 524−525), they could also be interpreted as conversions. Backformation involves all lexical fields and its bases are often parasynthetic verbs: Camp. koma ‘foliage’ → skomai ‘to strip of leaves’ → skomu ‘leaf waste’; cf. Pinto (2005, 2011: 142). Generally, as is well known, the final vowel changes in backformed nouns: It. -a > -o, Sp. -a > -e, -o, Sard. -a > -u (e.g., It. ripiego ← ripiegare, Sp. alza ← alzar, Log. imbísku ← imbiskare). Many proposals concerning its analysis have been put forward (cf., among others, Thornton 2004: 524−525). Sardinian deverbal backformed nouns generally end in -u (e.g., Log. abbremƀare ‘to resemble’ → abbrémƀu ‘resemblance’), seldom in -a (e.g., Log. inkundzare, Camp. inkunğai ‘to put away wheat’ → Log. inkúndza, Camp. inkúnğa ‘action of putting away wheat’).

149. Sardinian

2707

7. Reduplication Reduplication is one of the most productive word-formation processes in Sardinian but has only been partially investigated (cf. Wagner 1957; Stolz 2002; Ramat 2003; Putzu 2005; Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011; Floričić 2012). Briefly, it can be defined as a process half-way between morphology and syntax and has several uses: it forms adverbs as well as adverbial phrases, nominal compounds, and expresses intensive meanings or accomplishment. In (10−13) I provide examples of all these cases: (10) Adverbs and adverbial phrases a. fattu fattu → fattuvattu ‘sometimes; lit. done done’ b. Log. faghere sas cosas totu curre curre ‘to do things in a hurry; lit. run run’ (Puddu 2008: 374) c. Camp. camminai muru muru ‘to walk along the wall; lit. wall wall’ (Putzu 2005: 159) (11) Nominal compounds Camp. [[sarta][sarta]] ‘worm; lit. jump jump’ (Pinto 2011: 52) Log. [[lughe][lughe]] ‘firelight; lit. light light’ (Floričić 2012) (12) ‘Intensity’ Camp. grogu grogu ‘very yellow; lit. yellow yellow’ (Putzu 2005: 159) Log. chito chito ‘very early; lit. early early’ (Puddu 2008: 374) Camp. beni beni ‘very well; lit. well well’ (Putzu 2005: 159) (13) Accomplishment Camp. fattu fattu ‘it is done; lit. done done’ (Putzu 2005: 160; in opposition to fattuvattu ‘sometimes’ in (10a), cf. also section 4.4) Not all Romance languages have retained a way of expressing different degrees of intensity by means of adverbs. For example, the superlative of adverbs is lacking in Italian but not in French: Fr. le plus gentilment vs. It. *il più gentilmente, cf. Tekavčić (1980: § 830.4). Sardinian, as we have seen in sections 2 and 4.4, has not grammaticalized Lat. mente, but uses other mechanisms to form adverbs. In addition, Sardinian expresses adverbial degrees differently, mainly by reduplication (e.g., chito chito in (12)). Lexical iteration with adverbial function (cf. above (10b, c)) has been attested since the Middle Ages and, according to Paulis (1983: 233−238), may have been of Byzantine origin.

2708

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

8. References Bauer, Laurie 2004 A Glossary of Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bisetto, Antonietta 1994 Sugli aggettivi in (x)to. In: Gianluigi Borgato (ed.), Teoria del linguaggio e analisi linguistica. XX incontro di grammatica generativa, 63−81. Padova: Unipress. Bisetto, Antonietta 2004 Composizione. In: Franz Rainer and Maria Grossmann (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 33−55. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Blank, Andreas 2004 Cambio semantico e formazione delle parole. In: Franz Rainer and Maria Grossmann (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 23−30. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 1984 Storia linguistica della Sardegna. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 1988 Sardisch: Externe Sprachgeschichte. In: Günter Holtus, Michael Metzelin and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Vol. 4, 884−897. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Booij, Geert 1986 Form and meaning in morphology: The case of Dutch “agent nouns”. Linguistics 24: 503−517. Booij, Geert 2000 Inflection and derivation. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann and Joachim Mugdan, (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, 360−369. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Butler, Jonathan L. 1971 Latin -ĭnus, -ĭna, -īnus and -ĭneus. From Proto-Indo-European to the Romance Languages. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. Casu, Pietro 2002 [1934−47] Vocabolario sardo logudorese-italiano. Ed. by Giulio Paulis. Nuoro: Ilisso. Dardano, Maurizio 1988 Italienisch: Wortbildungslehre. In: Günter Holtus, Michael Metzelin and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Vol. 4, 51−63. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Dettori, Antonietta 1998 Italiano e sardo dal Settecento al Novecento. In: Luigi Berlinguer and Antonello Mattone (eds.), Storia d’Italia. Le regioni d’Italia. La Sardegna, 1155−1197. Torino: Einaudi. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1986 Explanation in natural morphology, illustrated with comparative and agent-noun formation. Linguistics 24: 519−548. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000 Subtraction. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, 581−587. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2006 Compound Types. In: Gary Libben and Gonia Jarema (eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, 23−44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

149. Sardinian

2709

Fábregas, Antonio 2004 Prosodic constraints and the difference between root and word compounding. Lingue e Linguaggio 2(2): 303−339. Floričić, Franck 2012 On reduplicated “imperative compounds” in Sardinian. Lingue e Linguaggio 11(1): 71− 96. Gaeta, Livio 2004 Nomi d’azione. In: Franz Rainer and Maria Grossmann (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 314−351. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Grandi, Nicola 2003 Matrici tipologiche vs. tendenze areali nel mutamento morfologico: La genesi della morfologia valutativa in prospettiva interlinguistica. Lingue e Linguaggio 1(3): 105− 145. Grandi, Nicola 2005 Sardinian evaluative morphology in typological perspective. STUF − Language Typology and Universals 58(2−3): 188−209. Grossmann, Maria 1994 Opposizioni direzionali e prefissazione. Analisi morfologica e semantica dei verbi egressivi prefissati con des- e es- in catalano. Padova: Unipress. Grzega, Joachim 2009 Compounding from an onomasiological perspective. In: Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 217−232. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, Christopher J. 2000 Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, 535−545. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Iacobini, Claudio 2004 Parasintesi. In: Franz Rainer and Maria Grossmann (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 167−188. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Jones, Michael A. 1993 Sardinian Syntax. London/New York: Routledge. Kampers-Manhe, Brigitte 2001 Le statut de la préposition dans les mots composés. Travaux de Linguistique − Revue International de Linguistique Française 42/43: 97−109. Lavinio, Cristina 1990 Retorica e italiano regionale: Il caso dell’antifrasi nell’italiano regionale sardo. In: Manlio Cortelazzo and Alberto Mioni (eds.), L’italiano regionale. Atti del XVIII Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, 311−326. Roma: Bulzoni. Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol Štekauer 2009 Introduction. In: Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 3−18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loi Corvetto, Ines 1988 Sardisch: Interne Sprachgeschichte II. Lexik. In: Günter Holtus, Michael Metzelin and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Vol. 4, 854−867. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Loporcaro, Michele 2003 Dialettologia, linguistica storica e riflessione grammaticale nella romanistica del Duemila: Con esempi dal sardo. In: Fernando Sanchez Miret (ed.), Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica (Salamanca 24−30 septiembre 2001). Vol. 1, 83−111. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

2710

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Loporcaro, Michele 2012 Stems, endings and inflectional classes in Logudorese verb morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio 11(1): 5−34. Mathiot, Madeleine and Dorothy Rissel 1996 Lexicon and word-formation. In: Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý and Wolfgang Wölck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1, 124−130. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Matras, Yaron 2009 Language Contact. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia 2004 Alterazione. In: Franz Rainer and Maria Grossmann (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 264−292. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Naumann, Bernd and Petra M. Vogel 2000 Derivation. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, 929−943. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Olsen, Susan 2000 Composition. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, 897−916. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Oniga, Renato 1992 Compounding in Latin. Rivista di linguistica 4(1): 97−116. Paulis, Giulio 1983 Lingua e cultura nella Sardegna bizantina. Testimonianze linguistiche dell’influsso greco. Sassari: Asfodelo. Paulis, Giulio 1984 Max Leopold Wagner e la fonetica storica del sardo. In: Max Leopold Wagner, Fonetica storica del sardo. Ed. by G. Paulis, 7−108. Cagliari: Trois. Paulis, Giulio 1995−96 Soprannomi e etimologia. Travaux de Linguistique et de Philologie 33/34: 365−380. Paulis, Giulio 2008 Introduzione. In: Max Leopold Wagner, Dizionario Etimologico Sardo di Max Leopold Wagner, 7−23. Nuoro: Ilisso. Paulis, Giulio 2011 Presentazione. In: Immacolata Pinto, La formazione delle parole in sardo, 13−15. Nuoro: Ilisso. Pfister, Max and Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.) 1979 Lessico Etimologico Italiano (LEI). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Pinto, Immacolata 2003 Riflessioni sulla morfologia derivativa. Con un case study sulla prefissazione in sardo. Ph.D. dissertation, Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università degli studi di Pisa. Pinto, Immacolata 2004 Alcune osservazioni sul prefisso in- negativo nel sardo e in area romanza. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 28: 197−217. Pinto, Immacolata 2005 Derivative prefixes in the Sardinian language. STUF − Language Typology and Universals 58(2−3): 228−245. Pinto, Immacolata 2011 La formazione delle parole in sardo. Nuoro: Ilisso. Pinto, Immacolata 2012 The influence of loanwords on Sardinian word formation. In: Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Hitomi Otsuka and Aina Urdze (eds.), Morphologies in Contact, 227−245. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

149. Sardinian

2711

Pinto, Immacolata, Giulio Paulis and Ignazio Putzu 2012 Sardinian adjectives with the N-i-A structure. Lingue e Linguaggio 11(1): 49−70. Porru, Vissentu 1981 [1832] Dizionariu universali sardu italianu, variante campidanese. Reprint. Cagliari: Trois. Puddu, Mario 2000 Ditzionàriu de sa limba e de sa cultura sarda. Cagliari: Condaghes. Puddu, Mario 2008 Grammatica de sa limba sarda. Cagliari: Condaghes. Putzu, Ignazio 2005 Introduction. STUF − Language Typology and Universals 58(2−3): 151−162. Putzu, Ignazio 2011 La posizione linguistica del sardo nel contesto mediterraneo. In: Cornelia Stroh (ed.), Neues aus der Bremer Linguistikwerkstatt, 175−205. Bochum: Brochmeyer. Rainer, Franz 1989 I nomi di qualità nell’italiano contemporaneo. Wien: Braumüller. Rainer, Franz 1996 Inflection inside derivation: Evidence from Spanish and Portuguese. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 83−91. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rainer, Franz 2004 From Latin to French. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan and Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 2, 1698−1712. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Ramat, Paolo 2003 Il sardo fra le lingue del Mediterraneo. In: Ines Loi Corvetto (ed.), Dalla linguistica areale alla tipologia linguistica. Atti del convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, Cagliari 27−29 settembre 2001, 15−33. Roma: Il Calamo. Ricca, Davide 2004 Derivazione avverbiale. In: Franz Rainer and Maria Grossmann (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 472−489. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ricca, Davide 2005 Al limite tra sintassi e morfologia: I composti aggettivali V-N nell’italiano contemporaneo. In: Maria Grossmann and Anna M. Thornton (eds.), La formazione di parole. Atti del XXXVII Congresso della SLI, 465−486. Roma: Bulzoni. Rindler Schjerve, Rosita 1993 Sardinian: Italian. In: Rebecca Posner and John Green (eds.), Bilingualism and Linguistic Conflict in Romance, 271−294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Scalise, Sergio 1994 Morfologia. Bologna: Il Mulino. Scalise, Sergio and Emiliano Guevara 2006 Exocentric compounding in a typological framework. Lingue e Linguaggio 5(2): 185− 206. Spano, Giovanni 2004 [1851] Vocabolariu Sardu-Italianu. 2nd ed. A cura di Giulio Paulis. Nuoro: Ilisso. Štichauer, Pavel 2009 Approccio quantitativo alla produttività morfologica: Alcuni sviluppi recenti. Echo des Etudes Romanes 5(1−2): 7−24. Stolz, Thomas 2002 Crosscurrents − the Mediterranean region as a potential linguistic area. In: Carlo Masala (ed.), Der Mittelmeerraum − Brücke oder Grenze?, 52−73. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh and Aina Urdze 2011 Total Reduplication. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

2712

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Tekavčić, Pavao 1980 Grammatica storica dell’italiano. Bologna: Il Mulino. Thornton, Anna M. 2004 Conversione. In: Franz Rainer and Maria Grossmann (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 500−533. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Virdis, Maurizio 1988 Sardisch: Areallinguistik. In: Günter Holtus, Michael Metzelin and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Vol. 4, 897−913. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wagner, Max Leopold 1952 Historische Wortbildungslehre des Sardischen. Bern: Francke. Wagner, Max Leopold 1957 Die Iteration im Sardischen. In: Gunter Reichenkron, Mario Wandruszka and Julius Wilhelm (eds.), Syntactica und Stilistica. Festschrift für Ernst Gamillscheg zum 70. Geburtstag, 611−624. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wagner, Max Leopold 1997 La lingua sarda. Storia, spirito e forma. Reprint. Nuoro: Ilisso. Wagner, Max Leopold 2008 [1960−64] Dizionario Etimologico sardo (DES). Reprint. Ed. by Giulio Paulis. Nuoro: Ilisso.

Immacolata Pinto, Cagliari (Italy)

150. Italian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

Abstract The present article provides a sketch of the main patterns of word-formation in Italian from a predominantly synchronic perspective, but with occasional diachronic digressions where this may be of interest to the reader.

150. Italian

2713

1. Introduction The first full description of Italian word-formation based on scientific principles is the third chapter, entitled “Wortbildungslehre” (§§ 483−611), of Meyer-Lübke’s Italian grammar from 1890 (1943 for the revised Italian version). This was a pioneering work also in another sense in that, for the first time in Romance linguistics, the patterns of word-formation were arranged from a semantic point of view (“vom Standpunkt der Bedeutungslehre aus”, p. 263), very much like in the present sketch. The next huge step forward was the third volume of Rohlfs’ historical grammar of Italian and Italian dialects from 1954 (1969 for the revised Italian edition). This work is still indispensible due to the wealth of its historical and especially dialectal data. The next synthesis, contained in the third volume of Tekavčić’s historical grammar from 1972, is still fundamentally diachronic, but contrary to Rohlfs the author again tried to work out systematic aspects beyond the single affixes from a structuralist perspective. It wasn’t until 1978 that the first synchronic treatment of Italian word-formation appeared, Dardano’s short handbook, which adopted as a theoretical foundation a version of the transformationalist theory, at a moment when this theory was on its last gasp in the Anglo-Saxon world. Only five years later, Scalise published a description of some essential aspects of Italian word-formation following the rival lexicalist theory of Aronoff (1976). From that moment onward, almost all works on Italian word-formation adopted some kind of lexicalist, though not, in the majority of cases, generative, perspective. This is not really surprising, since generative lexicalism can be essentially considered as a modern version of traditional, pre-transformationalist conceptions of the lexicon. From the 1980s on, the synchronic study of Italian word-formation has never ceased flourishing, which allowed Grossmann and Rainer to bring together, around the turn of the millennium, a group of 19 morphologists from Italy and German-speaking countries for the elaboration of the first full-scale synchronic description of Italian word-formation (Grossmann and Rainer 2004) in 658 pages. This handbook will form the basis of the present overview, when no indication to the contrary is given. Dardano (2009) is a short, didactically oriented textbook. The study of diachronic aspects of Italian word-formation, as well as that of word-formation in Italian dialects, is unfortunately much less advanced, though the lexicographic groundwork for such studies would be of excellent quality and only awaits systematic exploitation (but cf. now Emmi 2011). An up-to-date bibliography of works on Italian word-formation is Grossmann (2015).

2. General overview Italian is the most important language of the Eastern branch of Romance, with some 60 million speakers. The present article will concentrate on the modern standard language, for reasons of space but also due to the lack of large-scale systematic studies on wordformation in Italian dialects (apart from Rohlfs’ grammar) or regional varieties. Standard Italian eventually goes back to Old Florentine, the language of Dante, Boccaccio and Petrarch, but in the course of time it has been enriched, of course, by elements from other dialects, from Classical, Medieval and Neo-Latin, from Greek, as well as from vernacular European languages. The standard language remained an essentially written

2714

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

language until the 20th century (at home, most people spoke local dialects), which explains its remarkable stability since Old Florentine times. Italian word-formation shows the same overall picture as that of the other Romance standard languages. Affixation, especially suffixation, continues to be by far the most important device, even though the productivity of compounding has increased remarkably since the 19th century. This is true both for compounding proper and for so-called “syntagmatic” composition, i.e. the formation of new names for concepts on the basis of lexical patterns with internal syntactic structure (cf. article 12 on word-formation in construction grammar), as well as for neoclassical compounding (cf. article 95 on foreign word-formation in Italian), whose importance has risen sharply during the 20th century (Iacobini and Thornton 1992). Since Italian is the Romance language which has remained closest to Latin phonologically and lexically, the border between native formations and Latin loanwords is even more difficult to fix than in other Romance languages. Depending on the corpus you base your count on, up to 80 % of the Italian vocabulary, especially of complex words, can be said to have been introduced in a process of reLatinization which has been going on uninterrupted now for a thousand years. It is generally believed, for example, that of the hundreds of Latin quality nouns in -itas only bontà ‘goodness’ (< Latin bonitas) has come down to Italian via popular transmission, while the rest of quality nouns in -ità of Modern Italian are all either loanwords or native creations on the model of these loanwords. From a synchronic perspective, such formations are indistinguishable from genuinely popular patterns, while a word like German Bonität ‘creditworthiness’ clearly forms part of a “foreign” layer of word-formation. The other processes distinguished in this handbook are also all attested, but less important.

3. Composition 3.1. Nominal compounds Among nominal compounds (cf. Baroni, Guevara and Pirrelli 2007; Bisetto 2010; Grandi, Nissim and Tamburini 2011), the most productive pattern is constituted by l e f t h e a d e d d e t e r m i n a t i v e N - N c o m p o u n d s of the type vagone letto ‘sleeping-car; lit. wagon bed’. This type of compounding is now a relatively open process, but neologisms tend to follow analogues or series of analogues with the same first or second constituent. In comprehension, too, the semantic relation between the two nouns of a new compound must be reconstructed by the hearer on the basis of memorized compounds with the same first or second constituent, i.e. analogically, and with the help of encyclopaedic knowledge. Semantically, such compounds are generally less flexible in Romance than right-headed determinative compounds in the Germanic languages. Italian, however, differs from other Romance languages in that during the 20th century it has greatly extended this pattern to include semantic relations which are absent from other Romance languages. One such Italian innovation are s y n t h e t i c c o m p o u n d s of the type trasporto latte ‘milk transportation; lit. transportation milk’, which can be translated word by word neither in Spanish (*transporte leche vs. transporte de leche) nor in French (*transport lait vs. transport de lait), even though the latter language has

150. Italian

2715

also witnessed a widening of the process over the last decades (cf. article 38 on nounnoun compounds in French). It must be added, however, that left-headed compounds are sometimes difficult to distinguish from “telegraphic” appositions of the type Associazione Italiana Protezione Uccelli ‘Italian Association for the Protection of Birds; lit. Association Italian Protection Birds’. This bureaucratic habit of omitting prepositions must have played some role in the genesis of the wider use of N-N compounds in Italian. While formations of the latter type are probably syntactic in nature or at most syntagmatic compounds, some N-N compounds form a closely-knit unit written as one word which sometimes even shows allomorphic modifications at the juncture (cavolfiore ‘cauliflower’ ← cavolo ‘cabbage’ + fiore ‘flower’). Plural is normally only marked on the head (vagoni letto ‘sleeping-cars’), except for some compounds of the closely-knit type (cavolfiori). The second constituent, by the way, can be plural on its own, without transmitting this feature to the compound as a whole (treno merci ‘freight train; lit. train goods’). With respect to pluralization, determinative compounds differ from c o p u l a t i v e N - N c o m p o u n d s , where both constituents must be inflected: marxista-leninista ‘(a) Marxist-Leninist’, pl. marxisti-leninisti. R i g h t - h e a d e d n o m i n a l c o m p o u n d s also exist, but their productivity is low in comparison with left-headed compounds. At least at the beginning, this type was due to loan translations from Germanic languages: piano bar, gasdinamica ‘gas dynamics’, scuola bus ‘school bus’, calciomercato ‘football market’, etc. The few right-headed synthetic compounds of the type fruttivendolo ‘fruit seller’ (← frutta ‘fruit’ + linking vowel -i- + vendere ‘to sell’ + suffix -olo) have their roots in Medieval Latin. V- N c o m p o u n d s (cf. article 39 on verb-noun compounds in Romance) are no less productive in Italian than in other Romance languages (except Romanian). On most interpretations, compounds of this type are considered to be exocentric, since their referent is not identical to that of the N, but designates a person, an instrument or, more rarely, a location or an event not formally expressed in the compound itself: mangiapreti ‘(an) anticlerical; lit. eat-priests’, spazzaneve ‘snowplough; lit. remove-snow’, spartiacque ‘watershed; lit. separate-waters’, batticuore ‘heartbeat; lit. beat-heart’, etc. The N of V-N compounds generally represents the theme argument of the transitive verb V, as in the first three examples given, but as the fourth example shows, there are also some exceptions. One notable feature of Italian V-N compounds is that, from a purely formal point of view, the first constituent is clearly an imperative form, which is most obvious with first members where the imperative neither coincides with the third person singular nor with the infinitival stem (puliscipiedi ‘footscraper; lit. scrape-feet’ ← pulisci ‘scrape!’ vs. pulisce ‘he scrapes’ vs. puli(re) ‘to scrape’). This strict correlation, which is also obeyed in neologisms, is of a purely formal nature, of course, since there is no imperative feature in the semantics of V-N compounds. I have therefore argued to consider the first constituent as a case of paradigmatically determined allomorphy (Rainer 2001), what others call a “morphome”. A last type of nominal compounds worth mentioning are V- V c o m p o u n d s (Thornton 2008, 2009). These compounds have in common with V-N compounds that the V is formally identical to the singular imperative, though there is no imperative meaning involved from a synchronic perspective. These nouns, in fact, denote actions performed by a plurality of agents: fuggi fuggi ‘unordered flight’ (← fuggire ‘to flee’, imperative: fuggi!), etc. From a diachronic point of view, this compound type has indeed

2716

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

arisen from a reanalysis of lexicalized phrases composed of two imperatives, while for V-N compounds it is still controversial whether the V was originally an imperative form (Bork 1990, for example, makes a strong case for a connection with Latin compounds of the type Verticordia lit. ‘turn-hearts’ (name of Venus)).

3.2. Adjectival compounds Italian has only two truly productive types of adjectival compounds, viz. A-A compounds and V-N compounds. A d j e c t i v e - a d j e c t i v e compounds (Grossmann and Rainer 2009) entered the Italian language in the 17 th century as loan translations from Neo-Latin, where compounds of the type Graeco-Latinus ‘Greek-Latin’ had come into being in the 16th century (see article 91 on word-formation in Neo-Latin, section 3.1.2). Classical and Medieval Latin had no such compounds: Latin formations of the type Gallo-Graeci ‘Greeks from Gaul’ were nouns and did not have a coordinative interpretation. However, as pointed out by Hatcher (1951: 70 ff.), the first Neo-Latin A-A compounds of the type (Lexicon) GraecoLatinum ‘Greek-Latin Dictionary’ were clearly inspired by Latin nouns of the GalloGraeci type: after all, in such a bilingual dictionary words are also translated from Greek to Latin. But at the same time, the dictionary could also be interpreted as containing Greek and Latin words, a coordinative reading which is the only possible one in Anthologicum Graeco-Latinum ‘Greek and Latin anthology’. Once it had entered the Italian language, this pattern of compounding began a life of its own, leading to results different not only from Neo-Latin but also from other European languages. One Italian innovation was that speakers tended to reanalyze the sequence of two adjectives as a syntactic sequence − possibly because the -o of the first constituent is identical in Italian to the unmarked class-marker of the most important declension class of Italian adjectives −, putting an agreement marker on both adjectives: tragedia politicamorale ‘politico-moral tragedy’, attested already in 1662 beside tragedia politico-morale. Up to the present day these two patterns compete with each other, whereby the linking vowel -o- is more frequent in combinations which contain a first constituent well-entrenched in established compounds. The asyndetic pattern is the only possible one if one wants to put in first position an adjective of the declension class in -e, where the linking vowel -o- is impossible: tragedia morale-politica vs. *moralopolitica. Note that this restriction does not obtain in French, which has lost the distinction between adjectival inflection classes: tragédie moralo-politique is as grammatical as tragédie politico-morale. A further Italian innovation concerns the treatment of the juncture in case the first constituent is an adjective in -e (and the preceding consonant a sonorant). In that case, the -e is often elided: tragedia moral-politica. Maybe this innovation should be interpreted as a means of enhancing the formal coherence of the adjectiveadjective sequence, to compensate for the absence of a linking vowel. Adjectival v e r b - n o u n c o m p o u n d s (Ricca 2005) are an off-shoot of nominal VN compounds: V-N compounds in apposition have been reanalyzed as adjectives. But today, adjectives of this kind are formed independently of the corresponding nominal compounds, and quite productively so. Beside mozzafiato ‘breathtaking’ (← mozzare ‘to cut off’ + fiato ‘breath’), for example, there has never existed a corresponding nominal compound mozzafiato.

150. Italian

2717

The other patterns of adjectival compounds can hardly be called productive, occurring only in a very limited set of examples. It will therefore be sufficient here to give only a few illustrative examples: maleducato ‘badly-behaved’ (← mal(e) ‘badly’ + educato ‘educated’), nullafacente ‘idle’ (← nulla ‘nothing’ + facente ‘doing’), etc. Spanish N-i-A compounds of the type pelirrojo ‘red-haired’ have no productive equivalent in Italian, though some isolated examples are attested: occhiazzurro ‘blue-eyed; lit. eye-i-blue’, pettirosso ‘robin; lit. breast-i-red’ (on the “interfix” -i-, cf. Dardel and Zamboni 1999, from a pan-Romance diachronic perspective).

3.3. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds only exist as relics in Italian: capovolgere ‘to overturn’ (← capo ‘head’ + volgere ‘to turn’), benedire ‘to bless’ (← bene ‘well’ + dire ‘to say’), etc. Words like fotocopiare ‘to photocopy’ are better analyzed as conversions on the basis of compounds (← fotocopia ‘photocopy’) than as deverbal compounds (← foto ‘photograph’ + copiare ‘to copy’), and formations such as sottostimare ‘to undervalue’, as prefixations, since the meaning of sotto-, i.e. ‘too little’, is no longer fully identical to that of the preposition sotto ‘under’.

3.4. Syntagmatic compounds Syntagmatic compounds (Voghera 2004; Masini 2012) do not constitute a well-defined area of word-formation in Italian (nor in any other Romance language). Some scholars subsume all multi-word units with lexical status under terms such as lessema complesso ‘complex lexeme’ or (unità) polirematica ‘multi-word unit’, including therefore much of what has traditionally been treated as phraseology (cf. also article 41 on multi-word units in French). Scholars with a morphological background, on the other hand tend to isolate among these a subset called composti sintagmatici ‘syntagmatic compounds’, whose boundaries however have remained ill-defined both with respect to compounding proper and phraseology (Gaeta and Ricca 2009). The following patterns are generally considered to be part of this set. By far the largest subset of syntagmatic compounds are n o u n s. Such compounds enjoy an ever-increasing productivity in Modern Italian, especially in languages for special purposes. Two patterns dominate the scene, N-A and N-Prep-N. Concerning the NPrep-N pattern, it is noteworthy from a pan-Romance perspective that Italian has a special preposition da for expressing a purposive relation: macchina da scrivere ‘typewriter; lit. machine for writing’. The generic preposition di ‘of’ (cf. the Spanish synonym máquina de escribir) is systematically blocked by da in formations of this kind. The N-A pattern is also extremely productive, especially with relational adjectives: bomba atomica ‘atomic bomb’, etc. Syntagmatic compounds with preposed adjectives (A-N) are comparatively rare: terza età ‘the elderly; lit. third age’ (< French troisième âge ‘id.’), etc. Most of the time, syntagmatic nominal compounds behave syntactically like noun phrases as far as plural formation is concerned: macchine da scrivere ‘typewriters’, bombe atomiche ‘atomic bombs’, etc. Only in highly lexicalized formations do we occasionally observe

2718

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

that they behave like simple nouns, with the plural inflection attached at the end: pomodoro ‘tomato; lit. apple of gold’, pl. pomodori (vs. pomi d’oro in former times, before mela ousted pomo as the normal word for ‘apple’). All syntagmatic compounds, however, show restrictions concerning the applicability of syntactic rules. Most of them, for example, do not allow the insertion of an adjective immediately after the nominal head: una macchina da scrivere cara/*una macchina cara da scrivere ‘an expensive typewriter’, una bomba atomica pericolosa/*bomba pericolosa atomica ‘a dangerous atomic bomb’, etc. While the N-Prep-N pattern is essentially a Romance innovation, the N-A/A-N pattern goes back to Latin (cf. res publica ‘state, republic’). This is also the case for syntagmatic v e r b s (Iacobini 2009) such as buttare via ‘to throw away’ (← buttare ‘to throw’ + via ‘away’; cf. article 36 on particle verbs in Romance), which developed out of Latin expressions such as foras ire ‘to go out’. Such verbs are the equivalent of English phrasal verbs, though most of them are still at a less advanced stage of grammaticalization. Their lexical character is obvious from more or less severe syntactic restrictions which they are subjected to; for example, the direct object cannot normally go in between the verb and the particle (buttare via la sigaretta/*buttare la sigaretta via ‘to throw the cigarette away’), though some adverbs are tolerated (buttare spesso via le sigarette ‘to often throw away cigarettes’). Particle verbs of this type are more frequent in Italian than in other Romance languages (except Rhaeto-Romance, which has been heavily influenced by German). Last but not least, Italian has a modestly productive pattern of a d v e r b i a l s y n t a g m a t i c c o m p o u n d s. There are some 70 formations of this kind: oltrefrontiera ‘abroad’ (← oltre ‘beyond’ + frontiera ‘frontier’), sottocosto ‘at a loss’ (← sotto ‘under’ + costo ‘cost’), etc. This pattern, whose evolution remains to be studied in detail, must have arisen through a reanalysis as lexical constructions of prepositional phrases without an article, at a time when the use of articles was still less general than today (Latin had no articles).

3.5. Neoclassical compounds For neoclassical compounds, see article 95 on foreign word-formation in Italian.

4. Derivation As is the case with other Romance languages, derivation is also the central technique of word-formation in Italian (for an overview concerning productivity, cf. Gaeta and Ricca 2006; on prefixation, Montermini 2008). The following discussion will arrange affixes according to part of speech and meaning.

150. Italian

2719

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Denominal nouns Nominal p r e f i x e s are mostly of (Neo-)Latin origin and therefore closely correspond to those of other European standard languages, both formally and semantically. The main functions of nominal prefixes are the following: a) locative: avambraccio ‘forearm’ (← braccio ‘arm’), anticamera ‘secretary’s office’ (← camera ‘chamber’), retropalco ‘backstage’ (← palco ‘stage’), sopravveste ‘surcoat’ (← veste ‘cardigan’), etc. b) hierarchical: viceré ‘viceroy’ (← re ‘king’), sottosegretario ‘deputy secretary’, pronipote ‘great grandchild’ (← nipote ‘grandchild’), etc. c) temporal: preistoria ‘prehistory’, anteguerra ‘pre-war period’ (← guerra ‘war’), exterrorista ‘ex terrorist’, neostudente ‘freshman’ (← studente ‘student’), etc. d) quantitative/intensive: maxisconto ‘big discount’ (← sconto ‘discount’), megastadio ‘big stadium’, macroeconomia ‘macroeconomy’, miniappartamento ‘small appartment’, microprocessore ‘microprocessor’, semicerchio ‘semicircle’, sottoalimentazione ‘subnutrition’ (← alimentazione ‘feeding, diet’), iperinflazione ‘hyperinflation’, ipotensione ‘low blood pressure’ (← tensione ‘pressure’), supereroe ‘superhero’, etc. e) negative: nonesistenza ‘non existence’, disaccordo ‘disagreement’ (← accordo ‘agreement’), sfiducia ‘mistrust’ (← fiducia ‘trust’), antieroe ‘anti-heroe’, controffensiva ‘counterattack’ (← offensiva ‘attack’), etc. f) comitative: coeditore ‘coeditor’; g) reflexive: autogoal ‘own goal’. A phenomenon worth mentioning from the locative/temporal group are exocentric formations which denote a location or a period of time related to the referent of the base noun, but whose gender is nevertheless inherited from the base: antibagno m. ‘room located before the bathroom’ (← bagno m. ‘bathroom’) vs. anticucina f. ‘room located before the kitchen’ (← cucina f. ‘kitchen’), retropalco m. ‘backstage’ (← palco m. ‘stage’) vs. retrobottega f. ‘room located behind the shop’ (← bottega f. ‘shop’), anteguerra f. ‘prewar period’ (← guerra f. ‘war’), etc. However, this exocentric type does not extend to the temporal relation ‘after’, which is expressed in Italian by the structure dopo-N: dopoguerra m. ‘post-war period’ (← dopo ‘after’ + guerra f. ‘war’), etc. These exocentric compounds (dopo is a preposition) are invariably masculine, independently of the gender of N. A second observation concerns the degree of (dis-)agreement among European languages. While most prefixes, as I have already said, occur in most standard languages, their exact distribution varies considerably. As shown in Rainer (2008), for example, the type neostudente is much more popular in Italian than in other languages. The same is true for maxi-, which is by and large restricted to textile bases in most languages, but has been greatly expanded in Italian since the 1980s (cf. Haller 1988): maxiprocesso ‘maxi trial’ (← processo ‘trial’), maximulta ‘hefty parking ticket’ (← multa ‘parking ticket’), maxitangente ‘juicy bribe’ ← tangente ‘bribe’), etc. S u f f i x e s are also well represented in the realm of denominal nouns. They may be grouped into the following semantic categories.

2720

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

In the group of p e r s o n a l n o u n s we find a dozen suffixes, of which -ista is by far the most productive: latinista ‘Latinist’, brigatista ‘member of the Brigate Rosse’, etc. The traditional suffix -aio (fioraio ‘florist’ ← fiore ‘flower’), which goes back to Latin -arius, is still present in a large number of examples, but has become nearly unproductive. In colloquial Italian, its dialectal variant -aro (benzinaro ‘petrol pump attendant’ ← benzina ‘petrol’) has gained some diffusion during the second half of the 20th century. Italian specialties are -aiolo, which originated from a fusion of -aio and the diminutive suffix -olo (barcaiolo ‘ferryman’ ← barca ‘boat’) and -ino (postino ‘postman’ ← posta ‘postal service’). The suffix -one invariably carries a derogatory overtone (mammone ‘mummy’s boy’ ← mamma ‘mummy’). Italian has over a dozen suffixes for forming s t a t u s n o u n s , but apart from -ato (cardinalato ‘cardinal’s rank’ ← cardinale ‘cardinal’) they are all unproductive. Metonymically, some of these formations can also denote the corresponding collective, the seat, jurisdiction, term of office or activity. On the model of French négritude ‘black identity’, adapted as negritudine, have been coined sarditudine (← sardo ‘Sardinian’) and similar neologisms. Among p l a c e n o u n s , -eria is the most productive suffix nowadays, which specializes in the designation of shops and other businesses (cf. the internationalism pizzeria). An Italian specialty is constituted by the suffix -ificio denoting production sites (lanificio ‘wool factory’ ← lana ‘wool’, jocular esamificio ‘university; lit. exam factory’ ← esame ‘exam’). It obviously goes back to Latin -ficium ‘-making’ (← facere ‘to make’) but is no longer associated in Italian with fare ‘to make’, which is why it should be considered as a suffix from a synchronic point of view (Wolf 1974). The successors of Latin -arium (-aio, -aro, -ario) and -aria (-aia, -ara) are only marginally productive. Names for woods, plantations and the like (ciliegeto ‘plantation of cherry trees’ ← ciliegio ‘cherry tree’) are borderline between place nouns and c o l l e c t i v e n o u n s. This latter category can be expressed in Italian by over a dozen suffixes, which yield different referential subclasses. The three central, exclusively collective suffixes are -ame (bestiame ‘cattle’ ← bestia ‘animal’), -ume (borghesume ‘bourgeoisie, pej.’ ← borghese ‘(a) bourgeois’) and -aglia (soldataglia ‘band of soldiers’ ← soldato ‘soldier’). To these we may add the versatile suffix -eria, which also has a collective function (tifoseria ‘football fans as a group’ ← tifoso ‘football fan’). Collective suffixes tend to have a negative connotation when applied to human bases. This, however, is not the case for all collective suffixes (cf. borghesia ‘bourgeoisie, as a class’). The suffix -istica, whose central function is to designate branches of science or industrial activity, has also developed a collective meaning in Italian (manualistica ‘handbook writing’ and ‘the sum of handbooks’ ← manuale ‘handbook’). The suffixes -ario (incipitario ‘incipit index’) and -iere (canzoniere ‘poetry book’ ← canzone ‘poem’) are specialized in the designation of collections. The other collective suffixes are mostly semantic extensions of action or quality nouns. A category which comes close to collectives are plurals in -a like braccia ‘arms (of a person)’ (as opposed to bracci ‘arms (of a river)’; Acquaviva 2002). A further important denominal category of derived nouns in Italian is g e n d e r s h i f t. Feminine nouns are mostly drawn from masculine/generic counterparts by simple conversion (cf. section 5.1), but there are also special suffixes. Feminization with the suffix -essa (studentessa ← studente ‘student’) is no longer productive and -ina (zarina ← zar ‘tsar’), marginal. The suffix -trice, on the contrary, is fully productive, but restricted to bases in -tore (legatrice ← legatore ‘bookbinder’, with suffix substitution).

150. Italian

2721

Negatively valued a c t i o n s can be derived by -ata and -eria: canagliata ‘nasty treatment’ ← canaglia ‘rascal’, snobberia ‘snobbish action’ ← snob ‘id.’, etc. The versatile suffix -ata can also denote, among other things, b l o w s with (coltellata ‘knife thrust’ ← coltello ‘knife’) or on (stincata ‘kick on the shin’ ← stinco ‘shin’) something. Of the remaining suffixes, the most productive one is -ismo, which closely matches its European relatives. An Italian specialty is constituted by the variant -esimo, which in its productive use is restricted to the expression of literary, etc., tendencies and to bases in -ano (cristianesimo ‘Christianity’ ← cristiano ‘Christian’). The suffix -ese became productive in the 1970s for designating all kind of jargons (sinistrese ‘jargon of the Left’ ← sinistra ‘Left’), following the English model. Academic fields are productively designated by -istica (francesistica ‘French studies’ ← francese ‘French (language)’). Last but not least, as in other European languages, medical -ite ‘inflammation’ can also be used to refer to metaphorical diseases (aggettivite ‘abuse of adjectives’ ← aggettivo ‘adjective’). There are, of course, many other less or non-productive suffixes which cannot be mentioned here. As most other southern Romance languages, Italian is renowned for the exuberance of its e v a l u a t i v e suffixation (cf. Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi 1994; Grandi 2002; Necker 2006). There are both diminutives (some thirty suffixes, the most productive ones being -ino, -etto, and -ello) and augmentatives (four suffixes, the most productive of which is -one), while pejoratives (a dozen suffixes, dominated by -accio) have no special positive counterpart. Meliorative overtones, however, are often inextricably linked to diminution and augmentation. Both categories, by the way, can also convey pejorative connotations, depending on the context. Many evaluative suffixes not only attach to nouns (problemone ‘big problem’ ← problema ‘problem’), but also to adjectives and sometimes even to adverbs (cf. section 4.2.2). The exact range has to be stated separately for each suffix, all of which are subjected to complicated formal, semantic, and partly also geographic restrictions, even within one and the same part of speech. Evaluative suffixes normally preserve the gender of the base, but there are also exceptions (e.g., finestrino ‘car window’ vs. finestrina ‘window-DIM’ ← finestra ‘window’). Inflection class, however, is not preserved, contrary to what is the case for Spanish -ito and -illo; cf. It. problemino m. ‘small problem’ ← problema m. vs. Sp. problemita/ problemilla m. ← problema m. Evaluative suffixes can readily form chains, but with intricate conditions concerning the order; in pall-ott-ol-ett-ina ‘ball-DIM’ (← palla ‘ball’), for example, pallottola is a lexicalized diminutive, and -etto generally precedes -ino. Another complicated question is that of so-called “interfixes” (cf. article 31 on interfixes in Romance), mostly meaningless elements which have to be inserted between base and suffix under certain conditions. Some of them are highly predictable, e.g., the insertion of -c- between bases ending in -one and the suffix -ino (balcon-c-ino ‘small balcony’ ← balcone ‘balcony’), while others are historical relics (pesci-ol-ino ‘small fish’ ← pesce ‘fish’). As far as semantics and pragmatics are concerned, Italian evaluative suffixes follow universal trends (cf. article 88 on the semantics and pragmatics of Romance evaluative suffixes), though details are of course different in each language.

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Deadjectival nouns are all q u a l i t y n o u n s (cf. Rainer 1989). None of the ca. 30 suffixes has the status of a default suffix, i.e. can be applied across the board. This is

2722

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

proven by the fact that some adjectives must remain without a corresponding quality noun. The most productive suffix is -ità, which was introduced into Italian through loan translations from Latin. As a consequence, it occurs mostly with adjectives which are themselves Latinisms and retains a close affinity to bases with Latinate suffixes or final sequences such as -ale, -ano, '-bile, '-ico, -ivo, -oso, etc. If the base ends in -io, the allomorph -età is attached instead of -ità (ovvietà ← ovvio ‘obvious’), except for some short adjectives of the popular layer, which prefer -ezza (< Latin -itia; buiezza ← buio ‘dark’), a suffix whose domain consists of short, common adjectives (tristezza ← triste ‘sad’) or (ex-)participles ending in /t/ converted into adjectives (accuratezza ← accurato ‘accurate’, elaboratezza ← elaborato ‘elaborate’). In common Italian, the suffix -ia is restricted to some 20 adjectives (pazzia ← pazzo ‘foolish’), while it is productive with learned adjectives with a second constituent of Greek origin such as '-fago ‘-fagous’, '-filo ‘-phile’, '-latra ‘-latric’, etc. Most adjectives ending in the consonant cluster -ntform the quality noun in -nza (sonnolenza ← sonnolento ‘sleepy’, eleganza ← elegante ‘elegant’). While the suffixes mentioned simply effect a transposition into the class of nouns, the suffixes -aggine and -eria almost exclusively form nouns with a pejorative connotation (in fact, most of the time already the base has such a connotation: stupidaggine ← stupid ‘stupid’, meschineria ← meschino ‘stingy’). Many such nouns can also denote the corresponding act (‘a stupidity’). Metonymic extensions also occur with other derivatives (bellezza ‘beauty/a beauty’ ← bello ‘beautiful’, etc.). In productive use, Italian quality nouns are bound to denote qualities in the strict sense of the word, while in the case of adjectives denoting states normally the corresponding deverbal result noun is used (sconvolgimento ‘state of being overwhelmed’ ← sconvolgere ‘to overwhelm’, past participle: sconvolto ‘overwhelmed’/*sconvoltezza). In this respect, Italian is different from German, which tolerates the abstract suffix -heit with many participles expressing a resultant state (cf. Überwältigtheit).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns The most conspicuous category of deverbal derivatives are a c t i o n n o u n s (Thornton 1990−91; Gaeta 2002; Fiorentino 2008; Melloni 2011). At least in formal speech, any Italian verb can be used as a noun by simply nominalizing its infinitive (realized by adding -re to the theme vowel): mangiare carote ‘to eat carrots’ → il mangiare carote ‘carrot-eating; lit. the eating carrots’, etc. The syntax can remain verbal, as in the case at hand, or become (partly) nominal, the event is always presented as ongoing, not yet completed (which is why the nominalized infinitive cannot be pluralized). Besides the nominalized infinitive, Italian also has a separate category of action nouns, represented by some 30 suffixes. Of these, we will only treat here the seven productive ones. The two central suffixes are -(z)ione and -mento. The suffix -mento is attached to the verbal stem (allevamento ← allevare ‘to breed’), and so is -zione in productive use (apparizione ← apparire ‘to appear’). But in the case of -(z)ione, which is a suffix that was introduced into Italian through Latin loanwords, there are also numerous irregular formations which, by the way, have given rise through reanalysis to a productive, genuinely Italian allomorphic subsystem (for details, cf. article 44 on para-

150. Italian

2723

digmatically determined allomorphy). The third most important suffix, -tura, is especially productive for denoting technical activities (tessitura ← tessere ‘to weave’), which is also the case for -(a)ggio, a suffix introduced through loan translations from French (pompaggio ← pompare ‘to pump’; Fr. pompage). The remaining three suffixes are noteworthy for their sensitivity to aktionsart. The first one, which is formally identical to the feminine form of the past participle, mostly derives semelfactive nouns (nuotata ‘a swim’ (vs. nuoto ‘swimming’) ← nuotare ‘to swim’, past part. nuotato). The suffix -io, on the contrary, implies iterativity (brontolio ← brontolare ‘to mumble’). The last suffix, -nza, is specialized for stative verbs, which is why it is sometimes indistinguishable from the homonymous suffix forming quality nouns (ignoranza ‘ignorance’ ← ignorare ‘to ignore’ or ignorante ‘ignorant’). The second most important deverbal category is that of a g e n t n o u n s (Lo Duca 1990). The central suffixes here are -tore (presentatore ← presentare ‘to present’) and -nte (attaccante ← attaccare ‘to attack’). While these are neutral suffixes, -ino and -one, which are homonymous with a diminutive and augmentative suffix respectively, imply a pejorative connotation and/or the notion of excess (traffichino ‘profiteer’ ← trafficare ‘to trade’, dormiglione ‘late riser’ ← dormire ‘to sleep’, with an interfix). “Unaccusative” verbs do not take on agentive suffixes in Italian, but make use of the nominalized past participle (deceduto ‘deceased, n.’ ← decedere ‘decease’). I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s are also formed with agentive suffixes: -tore (aspiratore ‘vacuum cleaner’ ← aspirare ‘to suck’), its feminine counterpart -trice (lavatrice ‘washing machine’ ← lavare ‘to wash’), especially for machines, -nte (disinfettante ‘disinfectant’ ← disinfettare ‘to disinfect’), especially for chemical substances, -ino (accendino ‘lighter’ ← accendere ‘to light’). Note that the overlap between agentive and instrumental suffixes does not necessarily mean that the latter were derived from the former via semantic extension, as is often assumed: for -tore (Rainer 2004), -trice and -nte it can be shown that the instrumental reading originated from ellipsis (macchina ‘machine’ in the case of -trice) and borrowing. There is also a special instrumental suffix, -toio (annaffiatoio ‘watering can’ ← annaffiare ‘to water’). This latter suffix can also form p l a c e n o u n s (lavatoio ‘wash-room’ ← lavare ‘to wash’). It has a feminine (accorciatoia ‘shortcut’ ← accorciare ‘to take a shorter route’) and a Latinate variant (osservatorio ‘observatory’ ← osservare ‘to observe’). The suffix -eria, like in denominal use, derives names for workshops (conceria ‘tannery’ ← conciare ‘to tan’). P a t i e n t n o u n s are normally nominalized past participles, but there is a special suffix -ndo with an additional modal meaning (battezzando ‘someone who is going to be baptized’ ← battezzare ‘to baptize’). Last but not least, Italian has a special suffix denoting the b e n e f i c i a r y of an action (donatario ‘receiver of a donation’ ← donare ‘to donate’).

4.2. Adjectival derivation 4.2.1. Denominal adjectives Denominal adjectives are well represented in Italian and may be divided into relational and qualitative ones.

2724

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

R e l a t i o n a l adjectives, which were introduced into the language in the process of relatinization, work the same way as in other Romance languages. There is a wealth of suffixes with very parochial selectional restrictions, but no default suffix, which is why many nouns, especially among the more frequent ones, have no adjectival counterpart (e.g., prezzo ‘price’, martello ‘hammer’, etc.). Furthermore, relational adjectives are heavily restricted with respect to the range of nouns they can combine with: Mozart’s music can be called musica mozartiana, but his dog Pimperl would not be referred to as *cane mozartiano, except as a joke. Relational adjectives with extensive special sets of suffixes are those derived from place names (romano ← Roma, etc.) and personal names (dantesco ← Dante, etc.). As in other European languages, also in Italian relational adjectives can be readily prefixed in order to express spatial, temporal and other relations: extraterritoriale ‘extraterritorial’, postindustriale ‘postindustrial’, anticlericale ‘anticlerical’, etc. To a certain extent, such relations can also be expressed by simply combining the prefix with the noun, especially if the noun has no corresponding relational adjective: postparto ‘postnatal’ (← parto ‘birth’), etc. Among q u a l i t a t i v e adjectives, the most important semantic categories are resemblance and possession, sometimes expressed by one and the same suffix. In an appropriate context, relational adjectives can be used as adjectives of r e s e m b l a n c e , but there are also some specialized suffixes: discoide ‘disk-like’ (← disco ‘disk’), gommoso ‘rubber-like’ (← gomma ‘rubber’), setaceo ‘silk-like’ (← seta ‘silk’), perlato ‘perl-like’ (← perla ‘perl’), vetrigno ‘glass-like’ (← vetro ‘glass’), cristallino ‘crystal-like’ (← cristallo ‘crystal’), naviforme ‘ship-like’ (← nave ‘ship’), which is half-way between a member of a compound and a real suffix (cf. Rainer 2009). To a certain extent, this set of similative suffixes coincides with that of p o s s e s s i v e adjectives: coraggioso ‘courageous’ (← coraggio ‘courage’), ansato ‘with a handle’ (← ansa ‘handle’), barbuto ‘bearded’ (← barba ‘beard’), vitaminico ‘containing vitamines’ (← vitamina ‘vitamine’), etc. Among other possible adjectival meanings let us mention c a u s a t i v e adjectives: calorifico ‘producing heat’ (← calore ‘heat’), whose suffix corresponds to Latin -ificus ‘making, -causing’ but is no longer related in Italian to fare ‘to make’, angioscioso ‘causing fear’ (← angoscia ‘fear’), etc. The deverbal suffix -abile has been extended to nominal bases: papabile ‘who will possibly be elected pope’ (← papa ‘pope’), etc.

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Deadjectival adjectives can be divided into two groups, intensive and evaluative, though they are not always neatly distinguishable. The central i n t e n s i v e suffix is -issimo (bellissimo ‘very beautiful’ ← bello ‘beautiful’), which can also be added to simple adverbs (benissimo ‘very well’ ← bene ‘well’), and occasionally even to nouns (occasionissima ‘excellent bargain’ ← occasione ‘bargain’). In the case of adverbs in -mente, it is attached to the adjectival base: frequentissimamente (← frequentissimo ‘very frequently’). Italian also has some suffixes expressing an approximative degree: mattoide ‘somewhat mad’ (← matto ‘mad’).This category is particularly well represented with colour adjectives, with no less than nine suffixes which, however, are nearly unproductive (gallognolo ‘yellowish’ ← giallo ‘yellow’, etc.).

150. Italian

2725

Some of the suffixes of this last category are e v a l u a t i v e suffixes (azzurrino ‘light blue’ ← azzurro ‘blue’), which can also be added in Italian to other adjectival, and occasionally adverbial, bases: piccolino, piccoletto ‘very small’ (← piccolo ‘small’), negligentello ‘a bit careless’ (← negligente ‘careless’), grassotto ‘a bit fat’ (← grasso ‘fat’), belloccio ‘rather handsome’ (← bello ‘beautiful’), intelligentone ‘very intelligent’ (← intelligente ‘intelligent’), benone ‘very well’ (← bene ‘well’), etc. As one can see, these evaluative suffixes tend to have an intensifying function, but they go beyond neutral intensifiers by introducing all kinds of additional connotations difficult to translate.

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal adjectives may be grouped into two sets, active adjectives and passive-modal adjectives. A c t i v e adjectives are formed with several productive suffixes, whose distribution is too complex to be described here: dormiente ‘sleeping’ (← dormire ‘to sleep’), vivificatore ‘refreshing’ (← vivificare ‘to refresh’), allusivo ‘alluding (to)’ (← alludere ‘to allude’), divisorio ‘dividing’ (← dividere ‘to divide’). The last two of these suffixes, however, are more naturally analyzed, in some contexts, as relational adjectives related to the corresponding nouns in -ione: problemi digestivi ‘problems of digestion, It. digestione, not: that digest’, statistica educativa ‘statistics concerning education, It. educazione, not: that educates’. The most important suffix of the p a s s i v e - m o d a l group is the Latinate suffix -bile (vendibile ‘that can be sold’ ← vendere ‘to sell’, abominabile ‘that should be detested’ ← abominare ‘to detest’). Contrary to other Romance languages, Italian also has a native, etymologically related counterpart, -evole, which however is no longer productive and semantically more varied: pieghevole ‘that can be folded’ (← piegare ‘to fold’), ammirevole ‘admirable’ (← ammirare ‘to admire’), piacevole ‘pleasant’ (← piacere ‘to please’), etc.

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Denominal and deadjectival verbs Denominal and deadjectival verbs are derived productively with three suffixes, -eggiare, -ificare and -izzare. Of these, the latter two closely correspond to English -ify and -ize. While all three suffixes can form transitive verbs with a wide array of meanings, the suffix -eggiare, etymologically the vernacular variant of -izzare, mostly derives intransitive verbs (serpenteggiare ‘to move like a snake’ ← serpente ‘snake’, frivoleggiare ‘to behave frivolously’ ← frivolo ‘frivolous’). Equally well represented are so-called parasynthetic verbs (cf. article 29 on parasynthesis in Romance), i.e. verbs derived from a noun or adjective by combining prefixation and suffixation (or conversion): abbottonare ‘to button up’ (← bottone ‘button’), sbottonare ‘to unbutton’ (← bottone ‘button’), immagazzinare ‘to stock’ (← magazzino ‘warehouse’), abbellire ‘to brighten up’ (← bello ‘beautiful’), ingrandire ‘to make bigger’ (← grande ‘big’), etc.

2726

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

4.3.2. Deverbal verbs There are some 20 prefixes for deriving verbs from verbs, the most important of which are: auto- (emphatic), co-/con- (comitative), contro- (oppositive), de- and dis- (privative), inter- (reciprocal), post- and pre- (temporal), retro- (‘backwards’), ri-/re- (repetitive), s(privative and intensive), plus a series of prefixes expressing excess (iper-, sopra-, stra-, super-, sur-) or insufficiency (sotto-, sub-). Most of these prefixes also occur in other Romance languages, except for the versatile prefix s-: scaricare ‘to unload’ (← caricare ‘to load’), sbattere ‘to smash’ (← battere ‘to hit’). Italian also has a large number of mostly unproductive suffixes which add some aktionsart specification to the base (iteration, attenuation, etc.; cf. Grandi 2008 and article 84 on word-formation and lexical aspect: deverbal verbs in Italian).

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs are derived by adding the suffix -mente to the feminine form of an adjective (cf. article 106 on the Romance adverbs in -mente): rapidamente (← rapido ‘rapid’).

5. Conversion Italian has many patterns of conversion. As is usually the case in highly inflecting languages, the resultant word adopts the inflection of the respective part of speech.

5.1. Nominal conversion Adjectives can be productively converted into nouns when referring to some salient characteristic of a human being: (un) cieco ‘(a) blind person’ (← cieco ‘blind’). Adjectives predicated of non-human referents are converted into abstract or collective nouns in formal registers: (il) bello ‘beauty; lit. (the) beautiful’ (← bello ‘beautiful’), (il) privato ‘private affairs’ (← privato ‘private’), etc. Ethnical adjectives can be turned into language names: (il) francese ‘(the) French (language)’ (← francese ‘French’; note that lingua ‘language’ is feminine). Other cases are probably still better treated as elliptical even from a synchronic point of view: (il) gotico ‘Gothic style’ (cf. stile ‘style’), (il) Milanese ‘(the) province of Milan’ (cf. territorio ‘territory’), etc. Verbs can be turned into masculine or feminine action nouns (arrivo ‘arrival’ ← arrivare ‘to arrive’; conquista ‘conquest’ ← conquistare ‘to conquer’) or, marginally, agent nouns (procaccia m. ‘deliverer’ ← procacciare ‘to supply’). If we also count as conversions cases where the part of speech remains unchanged, we could add personal nouns of the type fisico ‘physicist’ (← fisica ‘physics’) and tree nouns of the type melo ‘apple tree’ (← mela ‘apple’). Some might also like to treat as the result of conversion (gender shift) nouns denoting females such as ragazza ‘girl’ (← ragazzo ‘boy’).

150. Italian

2727

5.2. Adjectival conversion Place names ending in a suffix-like final sequence are sometimes directly converted into relational adjectives: toscano ‘Tuscan’ (← Toscana), argentino ‘Argentine’ (← Argentina). In the realm of qualitative adjectives, there is no synchronically productive rule of denominal conversion, but we can observe many cases where nouns end up as adjectives as a result of a diachronic process.

5.3. Verbal conversion More than half of all derived verbs in Italian are conversions, mostly of a nominal base. The semantics of these verbs is extremely varied, very much like in other European languages: spionare ‘to spy’ (← spione ‘spy’), martellare ‘to hammer’ (← martello ‘hammer’), attivare ‘to activate’ (← attivo ‘active’), pazientare ‘to be patient’ (← paziente ‘patient’), etc.

5.4. Adverbial conversion A limited set of adjectives is turned into adverbs by conversion: parlare alto ‘to speak loud’, lavorare duro ‘to work hard’, etc.

6. Backformation Many words have been formed through backformation (D’Achille 2005) in the history of Italian (cf. Meridione ‘South, Southern Italy’ < meridionale ‘southern’ vs. Latin meridies ‘South’), but there is no synchronically productive pattern of backformation.

7. Reduplication There is no morphological pattern of reduplication either, in the strict sense of the word. However, at the syntagmatic level, adjectives and adverbs are commonly reduplicated for intensification (piccolo piccolo ‘very small’, pian piano ‘very slowly’, where the last vowel of the first constituent is dropped). With nouns, full reduplication serves to denote a prototypical instance (caffè caffè ‘real coffee’). This construction type, however, is considered by some to be a kind of determinative compound. The reduplication of locative nouns in order to express the meaning ‘along N’ only occurs in some regional varieties (strada strada ‘along the road’).

8. Blending In Italian, blending essentially appeared during the 20th century, but it is now well established: fantascienza ‘science fiction’ (← fantastico ‘phantastic’ or fantasia ‘phantasy’ +

2728

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

scienza ‘science’), cantautore ‘singer-poet’ (← cantante ‘singer’ + autore ‘author’), etc. The first part of fantascienza has become a productive “prefix”: fantapolitica ‘political science-fiction’ (← politica ‘politics’), etc. An Italian specialty is constituted by names of political entities formed by means of blending: Confindustria (← confederazione ‘confederation’ + industria ‘industry’), Federcaccia (federazione ‘federation’ + caccia ‘hunting’), etc.

9. Clipping As other European languages, Italian abundantly uses acronyms (Ue /u'ε/ = Unione Europea, Fiat /'fiat/ = Fabbrica italiana automobili Torino). Clippings in the strict sense of the word mostly correspond to the minimal phonological word in Italian, i.e. the trochaic foot: bici ‘bicycle’ (← bicicletta), frigo ‘fridge’ (← frigorifero), etc. In southern varieties of Italian, names and titles used as vocatives can be truncated after the stressed syllable: dotto’ (← dottore ‘doctor’), Geppi’ (← Geppino, first name), etc.

10. Word-creation Word-creation is used for creating optimal proper names (names of brands, firms, etc.), very much like in other European languages.

11. References Acquaviva, Paolo 2002 Il plural in -a come derivazione lessicale. Lingue e Linguaggio 2: 295−326. Aronoff, Mark 1976 Word-Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baroni, Marco, Emiliano Guevara and Vito Pirrelli 2007 N-N compounds in Italian: Modelling category induction and analogical extension. Lingue e Linguaggio 6: 263−290. Bisetto, Antonietta 2010 Recursiveness and Italian compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 7: 14− 35. Bork, Hans Dieter 1990 Die lateinisch-romanischen Zusammensetzungen Nomen + Verb und der Ursprung der romanischen Verb-Ergänzung-Komposita. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. D’Achille, Paolo 2005 Le retroformazioni in italiano. In: Claudio Giovanardi (ed.), Lessico e formazione delle parole. Studi offerti a Maurizio Dardano per il suo 70º compleanno, 75−102. Firenze: Cesati. Dardano, Maurizio 1978 La formazione delle parole nell’italiano di oggi (primi materiali e proposte). Roma: Bulzoni. Dardano, Maurizio 2009 Costruire parole. La morfologia derivativa dell’italiano. Bologna: il Mulino.

150. Italian

2729

Dardel, Robert de and Alberto Zamboni 1999 L’interfixe -i- dans les composés protoromans: Une hypothèse de travail. Revue de Linguistique Romane 63: 439−469. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Lavinia Merlini-Barbaresi 1994 Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Emmi, Tiziana 2011 La formazione delle parole nel siciliano. Palermo: Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani. Fiorentino, Giuliana 2008 Action nouns and the nominal infinitive in Italian. Romanische Forschungen 120: 3− 28. Gaeta, Livio 2002 Quando i verbi compaiono come nomi. Un saggio di Morfologia Naturale. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Gaeta, Livio and Davide Ricca 2006 Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics 44: 57− 89. Gaeta, Livio and Davide Ricca 2009 Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Rivista di linguistica 21: 35−70. Grandi, Nicola 2002 Morfologie in contatto. Le costruzioni valutative nelle lingue del Mediterraneo. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Grandi, Nicola 2008 I verbi deverbali suffissati in italiano. Dai dizionari al web. Cesena/Roma: Caissa Italia. Grandi, Nicola, Malvina Nissim and Fabio Tamburini 2011 Noun-clad adjectives: On the adjectival status of non-head constituents of Italian attributive compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio 10: 161−176. Grossmann, Maria 2015 Formazione delle parole: Sincronia e diacronia. Bibliografia. http://www.corpusmidia. unito.it/downloads/bibliografia.pdf [last access 22 Aug 2015]. Grossmann, Maria and Franz Rainer (eds.) 2004 La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Grossmann, Maria and Franz Rainer 2009 Italian adjective-adjective compounds: Between morphology and syntax. Rivista di Linguistica 21: 71−96. Grossmann, Maria and Anna Thornton (eds.) 2005 La formazione delle parole. Roma: Bulzoni. Haller, Hermann W. 1988 Sulla recente fortuna del prefisso maxi- nella lingua dei giornali italiani. Lingua Nostra 49: 84−88. Hatcher, Anna Granville 1951 Modern English Word-Formation and Neo-Latin. A study of the origins of English (French, Italian, German) copulative compounds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Iacobini, Claudio 2009 Phrasal verbs between syntax and lexicon. Rivista di linguistica 21: 97−117. Iacobini, Claudio and Anna Thornton 1992 Tendenze nella formazione delle parole nell’italiano del ventesimo secolo. In: Bruno Moretti, Sandro Bianconi and Dario Petrini (eds.), Linee di tendenza dell’italiano contemporaneo, 25−55. Roma: Bulzoni.

2730

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Lo Duca, Maria Giuseppa 1990 Creatività e regole. Studio sull’acquisizione della morfologia derivativa dell’italiano. Bologna: il Mulino. Masini, Francesca 2012 Parole sintagmatiche in italiano. Cesena/Roma: Caissa Italia. Melloni, Chiara 2011 Event and Result Nominals. A Morpho-Semantic Approach. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Meyer-Lübke, W[ilhelm] 1890 Italienische Grammatik. Leipzig: Reisland. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm 1943 Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei dialetti toscani. Riduzione e traduzione di Matteo Bartoli e Giacomo Braun. Con aggiunte dell’Autore e di E. G. Parodi. Torino: Chiantore. Montermini, Fabio 2008 Il lato sinistro della morfologia. La prefissazione e l’assimetria nella linearità del segno linguistico. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Necker, Heike 2006 Modifizierende Suffixe und Adjektive im Italienischen. Ph.D dissertation, Universität Konstanz. Rainer, Franz 1989 I nomi di qualità nell’italiano contemporaneo. Wien: Braumüller. Rainer, Franz 2001 Compositionality and paradigmatically determined allomorphy in Italian word-formation. In: Chris Schaner-Wolles, John Rennison and Friedrich Neubarth (eds.), Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented on the Occasion of his 60 th Birthday, 383−392. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. Rainer, Franz 2004 L’origine dei nomi di strumento italiani in -tore. In: Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner and Ulrich Müller (eds.), Analecta homini universali dicata. Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag. Vol. 1, 399−424. Stuttgart: Heinz. Rainer, Franz 2008 Neo- and Neo-Latin. Word Structure 1: 53−64. Rainer, Franz 2009 Die Integration des lateinischen Kompositionstyps tauriformis im Französischen und Italienischen. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 125: 45−84. Ricca, Davide 2005 Al limite tra sintassi e morfologia: I composti aggettivali V-N nell’italiano contermporaneo. In: Maria Grossmann and Anna M. Thornton (eds.), La formazione delle parole, 465−486. Roma: Bulzoni. Rohlfs, Gerhard 1954 Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten. Vol. 3: Syntax und Wortbildung. Bern: Francke. Rohlfs, Gerhard 1969 Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e die suoi dialetti. Vol. 3: Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Torino: Einaudi. Scalise, Sergio 1983 Morfologia lessicale. Padova: CLESP. Tekavčić, Pavao 1972 Grammatica storica dell’italiano. Vol. 3: Lessico. Bologna: il Mulino. Thornton, Anna 1990−91 Sui deverbali italiani in -mento e -zione. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 75: 169− 207 and 76: 79−102.

151. Romanian

2731

Thornton, 2008 Thornton, 2009

Anna Italian verb-verb reduplicative action nouns. Lingue e Linguaggio 7: 209−232. Anna Italian verb reduplication between syntax and the lexicon. Rivista di linguistica 21: 235− 261. Voghera, Miriam 2004 Polirematiche. In: Maria Grossmann and Franz Rainer (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 56−69. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wolf, Hans Jürgen 1974 Die Differenzierung der romanischen Sprachen im Bereich der Wortbildung am Beispiel von it. burrificio (frz. beurrerie, sp. mantequería, pg. mantegaria). Romanische Forschungen 86: 239−254.

Franz Rainer, Vienna (Austria)

151. Romanian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping and acronomy References

Abstract This article offers a brief survey of the main word-formation patterns in present-day Romanian. Special attention will be paid to more productive processes, though patterns which are less or no longer productive will not be neglected.

1. Introduction Word-formation in Romanian has not received much attention in recent literature on morphology. Even today the main reference texts remain the extensive monographs by Ciobanu and Hasan (1970), Graur and Avram (1978), Vasiliu (1989), which provide descriptive overviews of compounding, prefixation and verbal derivation, and the numerous contributions on individual word-formation patterns in SMFC (1959−72). Fischer

2732

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

(1989) and Vasiliu (2009) provide both synchronic and diachronic surveys of wordformation in Romanian, together with bibliographies of the most important studies. Very useful are the entries in Sala (2001), which cover all aspects of word-formation in Romanian. Recently two further works of reference have been published which also include chapters on word-formation (Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea 2013; Pană Dindelegan 2013). A number of studies published over the last fifteen years, such as Stoichiţoiu Ichim (2001, 2006), Trifan (2010), Vârlan (2012), focus on the lexical creativity of contemporary Romanian and constitute important starting-points for the study of the productivity of certain patterns. Several examples of newly-coined lexemes cited in this article are taken from these sources. For studies on the history of Romanian word-formation, the reader is referred to article 112 “From Latin to Romanian”. In this survey bibliographic references will be strictly limited.

2. General overview The differences between Romanian and other Romance languages can be attributed to independent evolution and different linguistic contacts. Up until the early decades of the 19th century loans and calques based on Slavic, Hungarian, Turkish and Greek models conferred specific characteristics on Romanian, also regarding word-formation patterns. Subsequent pattern-enrichment by numerous loans and calques from French, Italian and Latin has constituted one of the essential factors in the re-Romanization and modernization of Romanian. In recent decades English models have also exercised a strong influence. The wide range of etymological sources and their historical stratification have meant that Romanian has a much richer inventory of affixes and allomorphs than other Romance languages. The possibility of combining bases and affixes from different sources, entering at different historical epochs or belonging to different registers, is often exploited to create nonce-formations with ironic connotations and greater expressivity. The radical political transformation of Romania post 1989 and massive spread of mass communications, in particular the Internet, have also had important linguistic consequences. The disappearance of the need to use a kind of “wooden language” in all forms of public communication and the growth in the numbers of people with access to the media, has led to an explosion of lexical creativity, and to wider use of patterns which had been specific to colloquial registers and slang. As in other Romance languages, the most important word-formation device in Romanian is affixation, in particular suffixation. Compared to other Romance languages, conversion plays a greater role due to the productivity of certain patterns, such as supine nominalization and adjective adverbialization. The most important distinguishing characteristic of Romanian suffixation consists of the presence − as in inflection − of a complex system of allomorphs due to the numerous vowel and consonant alternations which interact with stress assignment (for a more recent descriptive analysis of the phonological system of Romanian see Chitoran 2002; Pană Dindelegan 2013: 607−611 also provides an inventory of inflectional and derivational morphophonological alternations). Unlike suffixation, prefixation lacks alternations and stress-shift. Compound words are formed by concatenating two or more free forms, two combining forms, or a free form and a combining form; in some patterns constituents are joined by a linking element. As for

151. Romanian

2733

the delimitation of compounds with respect to phrases, the various criteria proposed can be assimilated to two criteria often used in the literature: for a construction to exhibit compoundhood it should: a) denote a unitary concept; b) represent a syntactic atom. Stress assignment is not considered relevant since compounds behave differently as regards stress properties depending on the degree of lexicalization and frequency of usage. The most problematic issue appears to be the dividing line between phrases and certain types of nominal compounds (appositive N-N, N-A, N-NGEN, N-Prep-N).

3. Composition Among the various means by which Romanian and other Romance languages form new words from existing ones, compounding is by no means the one preferred (Ciobanu and Hasan 1970; Giurescu 1975; Grossmann 2012, which forms the basis of this overview). Although there are several patterns for forming compounds, in present-day Romanian only nominal and adjectival compounding are fully productive. Verbal compounds are rare and the process is no longer productive. Constructions made up of several free forms belonging to other syntactic categories are generally the result of univerbation of phrases or sentences. For numeral compounding with patterns that partially differ from those of other Romance languages, see the works cited above.

3.1. Nominal compounds In Romanian, as in other Romance languages, most compounds are nouns. Compound nouns are formed according to various patterns, but only N-N compounding is fully productive. Established compounds formed according to other patterns usually belong to folk taxonomies and have a metaphoric or metonymic origin. The prototypical native compound is left-headed. N - N c o m p o u n d s are typical of learned registers, and today are used in the language of the mass-media, in technical-scientific terminology, etc. In the recent spread of this type an important role has undoubtedly been played by French and English models. Compounds usually involve two juxtaposed N; the rare instances of constructions with more than two elements are formed recursively ([sud-[sud-est]] ‘South-Southeast’). Unlike A-A compounds and constructions that involve combining forms, N-N compounds are usually formed without a linking element. Coordinate N-N compounds are made up of two constituents, semantically at the same taxonomic level, which simultaneously identify/classify the entity denoted by the compound. This type of construction can refer to: professions and roles (finisor-asamblator ‘finisher-assembler’), instruments (secerătoare-legătoare harvester-binder ‘combine harvester’), means of transport (taxi-furgonetă ‘taxi-van’), ideologies (centru-stânga ‘centre-left’), periods of time (toamnă-iarnă ‘fall-winter’), cardinal points (sud-est ‘south-east’), etc. Some are endocentric and have two semantic heads, whereas compounds that identify an entity not corresponding to any of the individual constituents, but rather to intersections of the two, are exocentric. As for gender assignment, in case of conflict coordinate compounds appear to inherit gender from the left-hand constituent. Plural marking usually occurs on both constituents. Case

2734

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

and definiteness markers are added to the left-hand member or, in compounds with a high degree of integration, word-finally. The order of constituents is in principle free, but not every ordering has the same probability of occurrence. Another group of N-N constructions which encompasses most of the new coinages is made up of appositive compounds. The head constituent, which occurs on the left, classifies/identifies the entity designated by the compound, whereas the non-head, whose function is appositive, characterizes/qualifies it. This group includes established compounds, such as pasăre-muscă bird-fly ‘hummingbird’, but is mostly made up of constructions systematically displaying as non-head elements a few specific N (some of them calques); examples are cheie ‘key’, fluviu ‘river’, fulger ‘lightning’, şablon ‘pattern, template’. Such N carry in the construction meanings − often metaphoric − which only partially overlap with the meanings they carry when used autonomously (femeie bombă woman bomb ‘gorgeous woman’). The left-hand constituent determines the gender of the compound and is usually also the locus of inflection. However, given that the non-head elements in this type of compound bear qualifying meanings of an adjectival nature, some tend to inherit also other properties of adjectives, such as number agreement, predicative use and modifiability. The third, much smaller group of N-N compounds, is made up of constructions of the subordinate type. This kind of compound displays object-, subject-, or adjunct-oriented argumental relations between the constituents. Generally they are left-headed forms (coborâre(-)femei downhill run(-)women ‘women’s downhill’); right-headed compounds are calqued on non-native models, and some are obsolete (argint-tăietoriu silver-cutter ‘silversmith’). This type of compound inherits gender from the head-constituent; inflectional and definiteness markers invariably appear on the head. Many established subordinate nominal compounds belong to two rather similar patterns having very low productivity: N-NGEN and N-Prep-N. In the first of these, the genitive-marked constituent follows the head N (cerul-gurii sky:DEF-mouth:DEF.GEN ‘palate’), whereas in the second, the two N are linked by a preposition (lapte-de-pasăre milk-of-bird ‘snow eggs’). In both patterns the compound as a whole inherits the gender of its head and the head receives inflectional markers. Only constructions which are no longer transparent have external inflection. These constructions have a head as far as grammatical properties are concerned, but are exocentric from a semantic point of view. Many endocentric N-Prep-N compound-like constructions (maşină de spălat ‘washing machine’; cf. Giurescu 1975) with similar characteristics require further analysis. As for headedness, attributive nominal compounds involving an adjective can be divided into three groups: left-headed N - A c o m p o u n d s (iarbă-mare grass-big ‘elecampane’), right-headed A - N c o m p o u n d s (rea-voinţă ill-will ‘malevolence’), and exocentric constructions (cap-sec head-atrophied ‘blockhead’). While in compounds formed in Romanian the N is on the left, in constructions calqued on non-native models both A-N and N-A orders can be found. Although compounds exhibit internal agreement based on syntactic rules, these constructions are quite different from the corresponding noun phrases: the A cannot be modified by an adverb, nor can it be coordinated with another adjective. Gender is determined by the N constituent, except in exocentric formations denoting humans, whose gender depends on the biological gender. As for inflection, some compounds exhibit a high degree of integration and take inflectional markers on the right-hand constituent. In other constructions both members are marked according to syntactic rules, while others are invariable. These patterns show low productivity.

151. Romanian

2735

The e x o c e n t r i c V- N p a t t e r n , quite common in other Romance languages, has very limited productivity in Romanian. Most compounds of this kind are made up of metaphorical derogatory epithets (zgârie-brânză scratch-cheese ‘skinflint’); there are a limited number of plant and animal names (suge-pin suck-pine ‘pinesap’, mulge-capre milk-goat:PL ‘nightjar’); even the few new coinages that do exist pertain to the domain of colloquialisms (fură-becuri steal-lightbulb:PL ‘beanpole, tall person’). Another group of similar formations is made up of calques (zgârie-nori scrape-cloud:PL ‘sky-scraper’). The combining form port- ‘carry’, productively used to form semantically similar constructions (portochelari ‘glasses case’), is taken from the many compounds loaned from French containing this verbal element. The left-hand member is a transitive V that formally coincides with both the third-person singular of the present indicative and the singular imperative form, whereas the right-hand constituent is usually an indefinite N that is the object argument of the V. The second member can be either a singular or a plural N, but the compound as a whole is, with few exceptions, invariable.

3.2. Adjectival compounds Compound adjectives are formed according to a number of patterns, but only A-A and N-A/A-N are fully productive. As well as two-item compounds, there also exist nonceformations made up of more than two A that cannot be broken down into binary structures (globalizare politico-economico-militară ‘political-economic-military globalisation’). As in other Romance languages, the vast majority of compound adjectives are made up of constructions involving adjectives only. The constituents can occur either in the form of a free word (dulce-acru ‘sweet-sour’) or with an internal readjustment consisting in the addition of the linking element -o- (burghezo-democratic ‘bourgeois-democratic’) as in compounds involving combining forms. Many constructions, with or without a linking element, are variants, but do not appear to have the same frequency. Constructions with a linking -o- have a single morphological locus for agreement at the end of the sequence and are characterized by a higher degree of integration. When they do not include a linking element, compounds that allow the double pattern show some wavering between agreement on the second A only, and agreement on both A. As regards the relationship between the constituents, adjectival compounds can be divided into two groups: coordinate and subordinate. Most belong to the first group. In coordinate compounding we have two or more A, semantically at the same taxonomic level, which modify the head N both independently and simultaneously (spectacol comico-dramatic ‘comic-dramatic show’, steag roşu-galben ‘red-yellow flag’). However, most constituents of coordinate compounds are derived relational adjectives. Compounds of this kind represent adjectival transposition of the merging of two or more nouns, and classify/ identify the designata of the head nouns (dialog creştino-islamic ‘dialogue between Christians and Muslims’, expediţie româno-italiană ‘Romanian-Italian expedition’). Constructions with a subordinate relationship between constituents are less frequent. These are mostly compound colour terms that refer to a given shade of the colour denoted by the left-hand constituent (verde-aprins ‘bright green’, galben-verzui ‘greenish yellow’, verde-măsliniu ‘olive green’). As for inflectional properties, this type of compound exhibits fluctuation between agreement only on the first A, only on the second A, on both A and on neither A.

2736

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Among compounds involving an N and an A, the most productive patterns are: a) the left-headed type formed by a colour adjective and a N specifying shade (alb-colilie ‘feather grass white’) and b) the right-headed type formed by the name of a cardinal point and an ethnic adjective (est-european ‘East European’). The adjectival head is the locus of inflection in both cases; compounds of the first type are sometimes invariable. Right-headed Adv-A compounds, mostly calques, are made up of an adverb and a deverbal adjectival head that is the morphological locus for agreement (nou-înfiinţat ‘newly set up’, prost-crescut ‘ill-bred’). This pattern exhibits low productivity.

3.3. Verbal compounds As in other Romance languages, Romanian verbal compounds are rare and the process is no longer productive. Most established instances have the adverb bine ‘well’ as first element, followed by the verbal head (binecuvânta ‘to bless’). Other examples are some slang V-V compounds inflected on the second constituent (furlua ‘to steal, embezzle’).

3.4. Compounds involving combining forms Nominal, adjectival and verbal compounds involving combining forms differ from the above-mentioned types in that at least one of their constituents is not attested as a free form in Romanian. Such constituents may be neoclassical elements taken from Ancient Greek or Latin, directly or via other European languages, free forms borrowed from other languages that in Romanian become combining forms, or bound elements whose final segments are formally similar to those of a Romanian word but are attested only in compounding. Compounds involving combining forms, whether loans, calques or Romanian formations for the most part belong only to learned registers, but some have also entered common usage. As in other Romance languages, the pattern is highly productive. In compounds made up of a combining form and a Romanian word, the latter is usually final (electrocasnic ‘home appliance’), seldom initial (pomicol ‘relating to fruit-growing’). Combining forms may be members of endocentric and exocentric compounds. Most nominal compounds are endocentric but, unlike compounds not involving combining forms, they have a modifier-head structure (lactometru ‘lactometer’). Left-headed (filantropie ‘philanthropy’), coordinate (gastroenterită ‘gastroenteritis’) and exocentric (portavion ‘aircraft carrier’) compound nouns are less common. These same structures are displayed by adjectival compounds made up of two combining forms or of a combining form and a Romanian adjective: these are generally right-headed (aurifer ‘auriferous’), more rarely left-headed (filoenglez ‘anglophile’) or coordinate ((atac) angloamerican ‘Anglo-American (attack)’). The structure of verbal compounds is invariably modifier-head (teleghida ‘to operate by remote control’). Many compounds made up of a Romanian word and a combining form are formed with a linking element in accordance with the neoclassical model. If the Romanian element ends in a consonant, the linking element is added (ciobotecă ‘collection of potsherds’), whereas in vowel-final forms the vowel is modified into -i- or -o- depending on whether the final combining form is of Latin or Greek origin (legumicol ‘relating to

151. Romanian

2737

vegetable-growing’). Many new terms coined according to this model are playful and often bear a negative connotation (bârfologie ‘gossipology’).

4. Derivation In Romanian, as in other Romance languages, derivation is the most important device for forming new words. The subsections that follow offer an overview of the patterns classified according to output, input and semantic category.

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Denominal nouns The meanings of p r e f i x e d nominal lexemes formed in accordance with productive rules can be grouped into various categories, the most important being localization, intensification and oppositeness (Graur and Avram 1978). The category with the largest number of semantic values and prefixes is l o c a l i z a t i o n. It includes prefixes such as ante-, ex-, extra-, inter-, neo-, post-, pre-, sub-, supra-, with equivalents in other European languages, which express spatial, temporal and abstract localization (extrasezon ‘off-season’, interstaţie ‘transit corridor between subway stations’, subprimar ‘deputymayor’). Several prefixes with originally locative meanings, such as extra-, super-, supra-, ultra-, are productive mainly with i n t e n s i f y i n g function (extra(-)premiu ‘extra-prize’, super(-)gospodină ‘super-housewife’). Greater or lesser quantities/qualities are denoted also by other prefixes, these too internationalisms, such as hiper-, maxi-, mega-, micro-, mini-, semi- (mega(-)reducere ‘mega-discount’, mini(-)oraş ‘mini-town’). A semantic niche consists of folk-names of certain ascending/descending degrees of kinship formed by the intensifying prefix stră- and/or the reiterative one răs- (răz-), sometimes applied recursively (strănepot ‘great-grandson’, răs(-)străbunic ‘great-greatgrandfather’, stră(-)strănepot ‘great-great-grandson’). All o p p o s i t i v e prefixes, namely a- (an-), anti-, contra-, des- (dez-, de-), in- (im-, i-), ne-, non-, select nominal and adjectival bases (cf. section 4.2.2), contra- and des- (dez-, de-) are added also to verbs (cf. section 4.3), while the domain of ne- includes also adverbs (cf. section 4.4), as well as pronouns and conjunctions. The most productive is ne-, which attaches mainly to abstract nouns (plăcere → neplăcere ‘displeasure’), including established phrases (în regulă → neînregulă ‘not all right’), and which forms contraries and contradictories of the base words. Ne-, rather than the negative particle nu ‘not’, is employed in the negation of some non-finite verbal forms, namely the gerund (auzind → neauzind ‘not hearing’), the participle (auzit → neauzit ‘unheard’) and the supine (de auzit → de neauzit ‘inaudible’). A characteristic of these types of forms is that they allow the intercalation of the adverbs mai ‘yet’ and prea ‘quite’ (neauzit → nemaiauzit ‘not yet heard’, neavând → nepreaavând ‘not quite having’). Lexemes with in- (im-, i-) are mostly loans or calques; the numerous synonyms in ne- and in- sharing the same base are due to the tendency to substitute in- with ne- in these lexemes too. As for nominal des- (dez-, de-) derivatives, those formed in Romanian are few in number and refer to a lack of what is

2738

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

denoted by the base (nădejde ‘hope’ → deznădejde ‘hopelessness’). Formations in anti-, contra-, non-, and especially a- (an-), belong to learned registers and are mostly loans or calques. The numerous s u f f i x e s deriving denominal nouns in Romanian can be grouped in the following semantic categories. P e r s o n a l n o u n s are derived, in decreasing order of productivity, with -ist, -ar (-er), -giu (-agiu, -angiu) and -aş (-eş). Among the bases of -ist we also find proper nouns, acronyms and established phrases (habar n-am ‘I have no idea’ → habarnamist ‘ignorant, illiterate’), while the domains of -ar, -giu and -aş seem to be more restricted, but comprise some verbs too (ospăta ‘to entertain sb. as a guest’ → ospătar ‘waiter’; rata ‘to miss, fail’ → ratangiu ‘mistake-prone player’; cerceta ‘to explore’ → cercetaş ‘scout’). To judge by newly-coined lexemes, a number of professional sectors, such as computing (soft → softist ‘software technician’), mass-media (ştire → ştirist ‘news presenter’) and sport (craul → craulist ‘crawl swimmer’), continue to make substantial use of -ist suffixation. As for derivatives in -ar, among both more recent coinages (pizza → pizzar ‘pizza maker’) and less recent ones (ceasornic ‘clock’ → ceasornicar ‘watchmaker’), there prevail nouns denoting more or less manual and traditional trades. Also numerous are derivatives in -ist and in -ar denoting a person with a certain characteristic or habit (ochelari → ochelarist ‘glasses wearer’; fleac ‘bauble’ → flecar ‘babbler’). The small number of newly-coined personal nouns in -aş are of this type too (U [nitate] S [pecială de] L[uptă] A[ntiteroristă] → uslaş ‘member of the Special Unit for the Fight against Terrorism’). With few exceptions, such as camion → camionagiu ‘trucker’, derivatives in -giu denote extinct trades, or kinds of behaviour considered negatively (scandal → scandalagiu ‘brawler’). G e n d e r - m a r k i n g is realized by inflectional class change, suffixation, compounding or backformation. As for derivation of nouns denoting female humans from nouns denoting males, inflectional class change (student → studentă) and compounding with the lexeme femeie ‘woman’ are characteristic above all of formal registers, whereas derivations with -că, -easă, -iţă and -oaică (ţăran ‘peasant’ → ţărancă; mire ‘bridegroom’ → mireasă; călugăr ‘monk’ → călugăriţă; drac ‘devil’ → drăcoaică) also occur in the colloquial register and often bear a playful and negative connotation. Some of these suffixes are also used to create diminutives. As for the opposite type, that is formation of nouns denoting males from nouns denoting females, Romanian makes recourse to inflectional class change (prostituat ← prostituată ‘prostitute’) or to backformation (lenjer ‘garment worker’ ← lenjereasă ‘seamstress’). Nouns denoting female animals are derived from nouns denoting males by means of the above-mentioned suffixes (catâr ‘mule’ → catârcă; păun ‘peacock’ → păuniţă; vulpe ‘fox’ → vulpoaică), but in the case of -easă, which is restricted to bases denoting human beings, only in playful nonceformations. The inverse process, that is male ← female, is realized with the augmentative suffixes -oi and -an (răţoi ← raţă ‘duck’; gâscan ← gâscă ‘goose’), by inflectional class change (pisic ← pisică ‘cat’) or by substituting the feminine form of a suffix or of a homophonous segment with the corresponding masculine form (privighetor ← privighetoare ‘nightingale’; turturel ← turturea ‘turtle dove’). Suffixation with -ar and -aş allows the formation not only of personal nouns but also of i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s , though with differing inflectional properties: -ar/-aşMSG − -ară/ -aşăFSG − -ari/-aşiMPL − -are/-aşeFPL in the case of personal nouns, -ar/-aşNSG − -are/ -aşeNPL in the case of instrument nouns. These patterns, nowadays almost unproductive,

151. Romanian

2739

have given birth to names of simple objects and tools (deget ‘finger’ → degetar ‘thimble’; umăr ‘shoulder’ → umeraş ‘coat hanger’). The suffix -ieră, on the other hand, has a certain vitality, forming, on the model of loans and calques from French, names of articles of clothing made to protect parts of the body (genunchi → genunchieră ‘knee support’), pieces of furniture (noapte → noptieră ‘night table’), containers (unt → untieră ‘butter dish’), etc. The suffix -niţă, which ocurrs in widely-used derivatives with similar meaning, seems to be no longer productive (piper → piperniţă ‘pepperpot’). Suffixation with -ar produced also p l a c e n o u n s , but as in the case of instrument nouns, the pattern is no longer productive. The most productive suffixes with locative meaning are -ie (croitor → croitorie ‘tailor’s’), which also forms status and quality nouns, and above all -ărie (-erie), result of reanalysis of the final sequence of place nouns in -ie derived from personal nouns formed with -ar (blană ‘fur’ or blănar ‘furrier’ → blănărie ‘furrier’s’; clătită → clătitărie ‘pancakery’). Several derivatives also denote collective entities and/or exhibit meaning extensions relating to the profession exercized by the person working in the location referred to. A subgroup, half-way between place nouns and collectives, consists of derivatives from plant names with -ărie, -et, -iş and -işte (brad → brădet, brădiş ‘fir wood’; cânepă → cânepărie, cânepişte ‘hemp field’). The suffix -ie plays a key role in formation of s t a t u s n o u n s (preot → preoţie ‘priesthood’, şomer → şomerie ‘unemployedness’, văduv → văduvie ‘widowhood’). These denote a position or a condition and their meaning can include locative and temporal extensions as well as those referring to the activity performed by the referent of the base noun. Formations in -at, similar in meaning to derivatives in -ie, are in part loans or calques, in part created in Romanian (voievod → voievodat ‘dignity of voievod, voievodship’). The derivational category of c o l l e c t i v e n o u n s is realized by means of a large number of different suffixes. However only a few have as their primary function the formation of collectives; the others derive nouns denoting quality, status, place, etc. with collective meaning extensions. In contemporary Romanian the most productive suffix is -ime (-ărime) (student ‘student’ → studenţime), which also forms quality nouns (cf. section 4.1.2) and fractional nouns derived from cardinals (zece ‘ten’ → zecime ‘onetenth’). This suffix prefers bases which denote persons, and the resulting collective nouns often imply negative evaluation (director ‘director’ → directorime). Collective nouns in -ăraie, a suffix productive in the colloquial register, also have negative connotation (vorbă ‘word’ → vorbăraie ‘chatter’). There remains a group of somewhat heterogeneous derivatives which do not fall into any of the categories mentioned so far. This is the case with the numerous lexemes in -ism, -iadă and -ită, in part loans or calques, but for the most part formed in Romanian in recent decades. The suffix -ism attaches mainly to nouns ([Ion] Iliescu → iliescism ‘I. I.’s political ideology’, ureche ‘ear’ → urechism ‘hearsay’); adjectives may also fall within its domain (ardelean ‘Transylvanian’ → ardelenism ‘Transylvanian word/ phrase’), as may established phrases or sentences (mi se rupe ‘I don’t care’ → miserupism ‘indifference’). Many of the numerous nonce-formations in -iadă and -ită are created with jocular intentions and are used with negative connotation (profesor → profesoriadă ‘teachers’ protest’; chiulangiu → chiulangită ‘slackeritis’). Derivatives with the e v a l u a t i v e suffixes -ache, -an, -andru, -aş, -ău, -el (-icel), -eţ (-uleţ), -ic (-ulică), -ior (-işor), -iţă (-uliţă), -oi, -uc, -ui, -uş, -uţ, almost all of which are productive in contemporary Romanian, belong to various categories identifiable as

2740

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

diminutives, augmentatives, melioratives, pejoratives, attenuatives, but can only be roughly assigned to one or other of these categories. Which value or values the derivative carries depends also on the base, context and speaker intention. Evaluative suffixes are added to nouns, but the domain of some includes adjectives too (cf. section 4.2.2) and, less frequently, adverbs (cf. section 4.4) and pronouns (matale ‘you [informal]’ → mătăluţă). Certain suffixes are characterized by a rich allomorphy, sometimes also of a suppletive type (Maiden 1999, 2001). Most have forms for masculine and neuter bases which differ from those for feminine ones, but some show a certain preference for bases of a specific gender. They do not change the syntactic category of the base, but may lead to gender shift (cuţitN ‘knife’ → cuţitoaieF, piatrăF ‘stone’ → pietroiN). Quite frequent is the cumulation of more than one suffix with the same base (miel ‘lamb’ → mieluş → mieluşel), whereas recursive use of the same suffix is rarer (carte ‘book’ → cărtică → cărticică). Some evaluative suffixes also perform a gender-marking function and occur in the derivation of denominal agent and instrument nouns.

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Q u a l i t y n o u n s are derived by means of various suffixes. For some (-eaţă, -enie (-anie), -eţe, -itate (-ătate/-etate/-utate), -itudine), the formation of quality nouns is their primary function. Some derivatives show collective and locative meaning extensions and can also denote concrete or abstract entities manifesting the quality in question. Several widely-used quality nouns are derived with -enie (curat → curăţenie ‘cleanliness’), which continues to be productive in the colloquial register. Many new coinages are employed with playful intentions (kitschos → kitschoşenie ‘kitschiness’). When -enie attaches to verbs it forms result nouns (prăpădi → prăpădenie ‘destruction’). The suffixes -eţe and -itate (-ătate/-etate/-utate) occur not only in lexemes created on the patterns of other languages, but also in various commonly-used quality nouns formed in Romanian (bătrân → bătrâneţe ‘old age’; singur → singurătate ‘loneliness’); more recentlycoined derivatives bear witness to a certain productivity of -itate (cretin → cretinitate ‘stupidity’). The suffix -eaţă attaches mainly to adjectives of colour (roşu → roşeaţă ‘redness’). Derivatives in -itudine, on the other hand, are for the most part loans and calques, and the productivity of the pattern is limited to learned registers (sterp → sterpitudine ‘barrenness’). The function of quality noun can also be performed by nouns not formed with one of the aforementioned primary suffixes. This is the case of lexemes derived with suffixes which chiefly form nouns denoting collectivity, status, state, etc. (cf. sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns A c t i o n n o u n s are formed by suffixation or conversion (cf. section 5.1). Among the various rules, the most productive are -re suffixation and supine conversion (Cornilescu 2001; Hill 2002; Stan 2003; Iordăchioaia and Soare 2008; Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea 2013: 663−717). Prevalent and systematic recourse to these two types of nominalization is a characteristic which distinguishes Romanian from other Romance languages. In Old Romanian action nouns in -re too were the output of conversion, that is of nominalization

151. Romanian

2741

of the so-called “long infinitive” forms. With verbal value, “long infinitive” forms coexisted with “short” ones lacking the -re ending until the 18th century; since then they have assumed only nominal value, and borne the characteristics of feminine nouns. With few exceptions, the bases of -re are themes ending in: -a (intra → intrare ‘entering, entrance’), '-e (alege → alegere ‘choosing, choice’), -e (vedea → vedere ‘seeing’), -i (iubi → iubire ‘love’), -î (coborî → coborâre ‘descent’). Bases of new coinages belong to the most productive inflectional classes, namely those with themes in -a and in -i. The domain of the suffix also includes nouns, but resulting forms can be interpreted as deriving from subsequently attested or not attested but possible verbs. Selection of verbs to which -re attaches is determined by their actional properties. The suffix prefers bases that denote a telic and punctual state-of-affairs, and therefore usually attaches to transitive and intransitive unaccusative verbs (îmbătrâni → îmbătrânire ‘ageing’, pregăti → pregătire ‘preparation’) and not to unergative verbs which denote an atelic state-ofaffairs (râde ‘to laugh’ → *râdere, sforăi ‘to snore’ → *sforăire). Nominalization of the latter is realized by supine conversion (râs ‘laugh’, sforăit ‘snore’) which is not subjected to these restrictions. As for syntactic differences, it has been observed that while the behaviour of the two kinds of nominalization is similar in N-Object constructions, it diverges in N-Subject constructions, which are acceptable only with converted forms of the supine (cititul cărţii ‘the reading of the book’, cititul lui Ion ‘Ion’s reading’ vs. citirea cărţii ‘the reading of the book’, *citirea lui Ion ‘Ion’s reading’). The behaviour of the two kinds of nominalization also diverges with respect to pluralization, which is possible only in the case of -re derivatives. The main function of action nouns in -re is transpositional, but they can undergo various types of meaning extension. For example, they can denote the result of an action (clădi → clădire ‘building’), the means used to carry it out (cere → cerere ‘request’), the place where it occurs (ieşi → ieşire ‘exit’), the agents who perform it (conduce → conducere ‘management’), the entity affected (mânca → mâncare ‘food’). As for the many cases of rivalry among action nouns derived from the same base by -re suffixation and supine conversion, most of the differences regard presence/absence of meaning extensions, which are much more frequent in the case of suffixed forms. They also differ according to register and frequency of use: forms in -re are preferred in more learned and formal varieties, while supine conversions are more widespread in popular and colloquial ones. Other suffixes which compete in forming action nouns are less productive, and extend their domains more easily also to other syntactic categories, especially to adjectives. Furthermore, derivatives are on average more exposed to meaning extensions and lexicalizations. The suffix -ciune exhibits a rich allomorphy due to the diachronic stratification of its various forms: -ciune is the inherited form, while '-ţie, '-sie, '-zie and their variants, -ţiune, -siune, -ziune, less common in contemporary Romanian, occur in Latin-Romance loanwords or are created according to these models. Some derivatives in -ciune have eventive and resultative meanings ((se) strica → stricăciune ‘deterioration, damage’), others are only result nouns (înşela → înşelăciune ‘cheat’), or state nouns ((se) usca → uscăciune ‘dryness’). Derivatives in -tură (-ură) with only eventive meaning are few, and the majority denote, for example, results of actions (tipări → tipăritură ‘printing’), resulting states ((se) speria → sperietură ‘fright’), linguistic acts (înjura → înjurătură ‘curse’), entities affected (încărca → încărcătură ‘load’). The suffixes -eală (-ială) and -nţă attach above all to psychological verbs of the 4th conjugation and derive nouns which denote a resulting state ((se) obosi → oboseală ‘tiredness’; dori → dorinţă ‘wish’); derivatives from other

2742

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

types of bases have resultative ((se) înghesui → înghesuială ‘crowd’), locative (locui → locuinţă ‘dwelling’) and instrumental (căptuşi → căptuşeală ‘lining’) meaning. New coinages testify to a certain productivity of -eală, especially in informal registers (întâlni → întâlneală ‘meeting’). A semantically homogenous group is that constituted by nouns which denote sounds and noises derived with '-et ('-ăt) (striga → strigăt ‘shout’). No longer productive are -toare (-oare), -iş (-âş) and -uş. With the exception of a limited number of lexemes inherited or formed in Romanian, result nouns in -mânt (-ment) are loans or calques, as are nouns in -aj denoting technical or professional activities. The main suffix for the derivation of a g e n t n o u n s is -tor (-toareF). The rule gives rise to forms for the most part utilisable with either nominal or adjectival function, but also to derivatives with only one of the two functions. The suffix attaches above all to divalent and monovalent verbs which assign an agent role to the subject. As we shall see in section 4.2.3, lexemes derived from verbs whose subject is assigned a theme or experiencer role have adjectival function, but may sometimes undergo conversion into nouns (convieţui → convieţuitor ‘cohabitant’). Derivatives in -tor denote a person who by trade habitually performs an action (învăţa → învăţător ‘teacher’) or habitually behaves in a certain way (fuma → fumător ‘smoker’), or identify someone who performs a specific action (prezenta → prezentatorul [este un medic] ‘the presenter [is a doctor]’). The suffixes -ac and -ău, which create negatively-connotated nouns (aplauda ‘to applaud’ → aplaudac ‘yes-man’; mânca ‘to eat’ → mâncău ‘glutton’), are almost unproductive. Except for a few lexemes used with nominal function (cânta → cântăreţ ‘singer’), agent nouns in -ăreţ, -cios and -uş are the result of conversion of adjectives formed with these suffixes. The most productive pattern for forming i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s is deverbal derivation with -tor and -toare. The verbal bases may coincide with those of agent nouns, but the two patterns differ as to inflectional properties: -torMSG − -toareFSG − -toriMPL − -toareFPL in the case of agent nouns, -torNSG − -toareNPL and -toareFSG − -toriFPL in the case of instrument nouns. Derivatives refer to a wide range of objects including machines (treiera → treierătoare ‘thresher’), simpler instruments (felia → feliator ‘slicer’), substances (fertiliza → fertilizator ‘fertilizer’), etc. Forms in -tor and in -toare derived from the same base can denote different instruments (şterge → ştergător ‘wiper’ vs. ştergătoare ‘doormat’), or may be synonyms (urzi → urzitor, urzitoare ‘warper’). To judge from new coinages derivation in -tor is more productive. Suffixation with -tor and -toare has also produced p l a c e n o u n s (spăla → spălător ‘washroom, washbasin’; trece → trecătoare ‘passage’), but these patterns are no longer productive, and neither is derivation of place nouns with -iş and -uş ((se) ascunde → ascunziş ‘hiding place’; (se) culca ‘to put/go to bed’ → culcuş ‘bed (for an animal)’), which occur also in action nouns with locative meaning extensions.

4.2. Adjectival derivation 4.2.1. Denominal adjectives A number of suffixes have the function of forming relational and qualifying adjectives from nouns (Ernst 1986). As far as r e l a t i o n a l adjectives are concerned, derivatives in -al, -ar, -ic, -ier, -in, -istic are for the most part loans and calques. The suffix -icesc,

151. Romanian

2743

frequent in 19th-century technical terms, is nowadays found only in a few widely-used adjectives (spital ‘hospital’ → spitalicesc) and in some newly-coined colloquialisms (internet → interneticesc). Among suffixes forming both relational and qualifying adjectives, -esc is very frequent, and its productivity has been further reinforced by the presence of a homonymous suffix found in loanwords of French and Italian origin. This suffix attaches above all to bases denoting persons. Among its numerous derivatives, besides relational adjectives (judecător ‘judge’ → judecătoresc), two important groups are constituted on the one hand by ethnic adjectives, discussed below, and on the other by adjectives which are exclusively or mainly qualifying (prieten → prietenesc ‘friendly’). No longer productive are -nic (-elnic) and -atic, occurring in relational and qualifying adjectives in common use (casă → casnic ‘household’, putere → puternic ‘powerful’; muiere → muieratic ‘effeminate’). As for derivation of p o s s e s s i v e and r e s e m b l a n c e adjectives, the most productive suffix, especially in colloquial varieties, is -os (frică → fricos ‘fearful’, ulei → uleios ‘oily’); where bases denote inalienable properties, derivatives denote that an entity is endowed with N to an above average degree (păr → păros ‘hairy’). A similar semantic function can also be performed by the less productive suffix -at (sprânceană → sprâncenat ‘thick-browed’), which also forms resemblance adjectives (borcan → borcănat ‘jar-like’). Other suffixes denoting resemblance are: -iu (-uliu, -uriu), which occurs mainly in colour adjectives (portocală → portocaliu ‘orange’), -ard (şablon → şablonard ‘clichéd’) and -oid, found in loans and calques belonging to technical and scientific terminologies, but also in certain adjectives used in the mass-media and formed in Romanian (legionar ‘iron-guardist’ → legionaroid). Among the numerous suffixes that form e t h n i c nouns and adjectives, the main one, which is found in the largest number of lexemes derived from Romanian toponyms, is -ean (-an). Two other suffixes, -ez and -an (-ian), have quite a rich inventory of derivatives. The rules for forming ethnic nouns and ethnic adjectives coincide only in part. The two forms are identical in the masculine, but in the feminine, besides the forms common to the two syntactic categories in -ă (bucureşteanN,A ‘from Bucarest’ → bucureşteanăN,A; chinezN,A ‘Chinese’ → chinezăN,A), the ethnic nouns in -ean (-an) and -an (ian) can also add the gender-marking suffix -că (bucureşteancăN), and those in -ez the suffix -oaică (chinezoaicăN). Feminine-marking with -că and -oaică, which is also found in some unsuffixed inhabitant names (ungur ‘Hungarian’ → unguroaică), prevails in colloquial Romanian, and is typical of the oldest and most widely-used names. Alongside certain derivatives in -ean (-an), -ez and unsuffixed forms, used with both adjectival and nominal function, there coexist some exclusively adjectival derivatives formed by adding -esc (moldoveanN,A ‘Moldavian’ → moldovenescA; chinezN,A → chinezescA; grecN,A ‘Greek’ → grecescA). As for adjectival derivation from proper nouns (from a name or a surname or a compound base made up of name and surname), the suffixes -ian, -esc (Charlie Chaplin → charliechaplinian; [Mircea] Eliade → eliadesc) and, to a lesser degree, -an, -ic, -ist and -istic are productive, especially in the mass-media.

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives The semantic values of prefixed adjectives can be grouped in two large categories: intensification and oppositeness (Graur and Avram 1978). The bases are qualifying adjectives

2744

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

and most prefixes used with these functions can also be found in other European languages. Productive prefixes with i n t e n s i f y i n g function, such as arhi-, extra-, hiper-, super-, supra-, ultra-, indicate that the quality denoted by the base is present to the highest degree (arhi(-)folosit ‘widely used’, ultra(-)plicticos ‘ultra-boring’). Only marginally productive, if at all, are răs- (răz-), stră- (răscunoscut ‘well known’, străvechi ‘very old’) and prea-, which is found in religious terminology (preaînalt ‘most high’). Intensifying prefixes can attach to the same base forming synonymous series, and in informal registers can also be used recursively. Among o p p o s i t i v e prefixes, the most productive is ne-, which is added mainly to deverbal adjectives (asemănător ‘similar’ → neasemănător), but also to denominals (prietenos ‘friendly’ → neprietenos) and, more rarely, to simplex bases (clar ‘clear’ → neclar). In cases of cumulation, ne- precedes other prefixes. As with nouns, in- (im-, i-), occurs in borrowed adjectives or calques, often synonyms of derivatives from the same base formed with ne-. Adjectives in non- and a- (an-) belong only to learned registers and are loans or calques. Several prefixes with localization and oppositeness functions can also attach to denominal relational adjectives. In these cases adjectives are prefixed only as far as the form is concerned, since the prefix has scope over the nominal base of the adjective (extraşcolar ‘after-school’). This pattern is quite productive, also in analogy with numerous loans and calques. Similar meanings are expressed by certain adjectives with non-suffixed nominal bases also formed on foreign models ([competiţie] inter(-)cluburi ‘inter-club [competition]’). Many e v a l u a t i v e suffixes which attach to nouns (cf. section 4.1.1) extend their domain also to qualifying adjectives to form derivatives with approximative/attenuative and/or evaluative meaning. Depending on the context, the positive or negative value judgement of the speaker may regard either the quality denoted by the adjectival base or the referent of the noun modified. Among most frequently occurring suffixes (-aş (-ălaş), -el (-icel), -eţ (-uleţ), -ior (-cior, -şor, -işor, -uşor), -iu (-uliu), -oid, -os, -uc, -ui, -uş, -uţ), the most productive seem to be -el and -uţ (subţire ‘thin’ → subţirel; mic ‘little’ → micuţ). Many derivatives are characterized by their availability for nominal conversion. Colour adjectives share a set of suffixes (-atic, -icios, -ior, -iu (-uliu, -uriu), -ui) expressing approximation to the focal point of a colour (verde ‘green’ → verzui). In combination with adjectives, augmentative suffixes with intensifying function have low productivity. For example -an occurs in derivatives which are often nominalized (gras ‘fat’ → grăsan); -oi occurs in some lexicalized forms (viu ‘living’ → vioi ‘lively’).

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Suffixes forming adjectives from verbs are -ant (-ent), -ăreţ, -bil, -cios, -os, -tiv (-iv), -tor, -uş. As we have seen in sections 4.1.3, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, some of these also derive nouns, and their domain can include nouns and/or adjectives too. From a semantic point of view, except for adjectives in -bil with potential-passive meaning, derivatives with other suffixes are a c t i v e adjectives. Formations in -ant (-ent), -tiv (-iv) belong to learned varieties and are for the most part loans or calques. As for deverbal adjectives formed with other suffixes, those in -ăreţ and -cios, which are negatively connotated, consistently convey an additional meaning, such as ‘excessively’, ‘often’, ‘easily’, and

151. Romanian

2745

refer to reiterative events (vorbi → vorbăreţ ‘talkative’; supăra → supărăcios ‘touchy’). A similar semantic matrix, but without negative connotation, can be found with deverbal adjectives in -os and -uş ((se) luneca → lunecos ‘slippery’; juca → jucăuş ‘playful’). The deverbal suffix -tor forms large numbers of derivatives, some of which are primarily nouns and only secondarily adjectives. Formations with exclusively adjectival function are derived from verbs which assign a theme or experiencer role to their subjects (cădea → căzător ‘falling’, iubi → iubitor ‘loving’). Adjectives in -bil include both numerous loans and several formations derived in Romanian (some recently, e.g., se vacanta → vacantabil ‘vacatable’) from transitive passivizable verbs. Denominal derivatives are rare, and for these possible verbal bases may also be hypothesized (puşcăriabil ‘imprisonable’ ← puşcărie ‘prison’).

4.2.4. Deadverbial adjectives Adverbs or established adverbial phrases can also be bases for adjectival derivation (lesnicios ‘easy’ ← lesne ‘easily’).

4.3. Verbal derivation The main semantic values of p r e f i x e d d e v e r b a l v e r b s consist of designation of reiteration or reversal of an event (Graur and Avram 1978). Of the two r e i t e r a t i v e prefixes, răs- (răz-, ră-) and re-, only re- is productive in contemporary Romanian. It is found both in loans and calques, and in lexemes formed in Romanian (clădi → reclădi ‘to rebuild’). As well as reiteration of an event, verbs in re- can also denote movement in a contrary sense (trimite ‘to send’ → retrimite ‘to return’). The prefix răs- (răz-, ră-) (cf. sections 4.1.1, 4.2.2) occurs in verbs which denote return to a previous state (popi → răspopi ‘to defrock’) or intensification of an action (coace → răscoace ‘to overcook’). R e v e r s a l of an event is expressed by verbs prefixed in des- (dez-, de-), whose inventory comprises both verbs formed in Romanian and loans and calques. If the base is telic the verb in des- is reversative ((se) lipi → (se) dezlipi ‘to unstick’); if the base is atelic, the prefixed verb denotes a contrary state (nădăjdui → deznădăjdui ‘to despair’). The number of deverbal verbs formed with other prefixes is more limited. As for o p p o s i t i v e prefixes, we find derivatives in contra- (pune → contrapune ‘to set against’) and, more rarely, in ne- (socoti → nesocoti ‘to disregard’), the latter mostly in verbs backformed from adjectives (nedumeri ← nedumerit ‘perplex’). Other prefixed verbs denote, for example, spatial, temporal or abstract localization (arenda → subarenda ‘to sublease’, fierbe → prefierbe ‘to preboil’) or intensification (luci → străluci ‘to shine’), or have comitative value (regiza → co(-)regiza ‘to codirect’). Prefixes în- (îm-), des- (dez-, de-) and, to a lesser extent a-, which is no longer productive, occur in numerous p a r a s y n t h e t i c v e r b s (Reinheimer-Rîpeanu 1974). Suffixes are only rarely present in parasynthetic verbs; in most cases we find simultaneous prefixation and conversion of a nominal or adjectival base with assignment to the 1st or the 4th conjugation. Unlike des-, the prefixes în- and a- occur almost exclusively in parasynthetic derivatives and do not convey a specific meaning differentiating the

2746

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

semantic structure of this type of verb from those formed by conversion or suffixation. Interpretation of denominal verbs depends on the role of the referent of the base in the state-of-affairs represented. Referents of the base can, for example, represent instruments (puşcă ‘gun’ → împuşca ‘to shoot down’), located entities (cunună → încununa ‘to crown’), locations (temniţă → întemniţa ‘to jail’). Deadjectival verbs are causative and/ or inchoative and refer to a change of state (bătrân ‘old’ → îmbătrâni ‘to age’, bolnav → (se) îmbolnăvi ‘to sicken’). In some cases the base is an adverb (târziu → întârzia ‘to be late, delay’) or a numeral (zece → înzeci ‘to decuple’). The prefix des- (dez-, de-) also derives verbs for which no corresponding denominal or deadjectival base is attested. The formation of verbs such as dezgropa ‘to unbury’, (se) descreţi ‘to uncurl’ involve substitution of the prefix în- (îm-) of the corresponding denominal or deadjectival verbs, in this case groapă ‘grave, pit’ → îngropa ‘to bury’ and creţ ‘curly’ → (se) încreţi ‘to curl’. Constitution of opposites by prefix substitution is also quite frequent in cases of homophonous segments of în- (îm-) and a- in the absence of a nominal or adjectival base (destupa ‘to uncork’ − astupa ‘to cork’, dezvăţa ‘to unlearn’ − învăţa ‘to learn’). Romanian also has a fair number of s u f f i x e s for verb formation (Vasiliu 1989), but nowadays the only productive ones seem to be -iza, -ona, -ui and -ăi (-âi) with nominal and/or adjectival bases. Verb formation by suffixation of verbal bases is no longer productive. Whereas many verbs in -iza, and especially in -ona, are typical of more learned registers and are often analyzable loanwords, derivatives in -ui and -ăi (-âi) belong to the colloquial register. The suffix -iza attaches both to adjectives (orăşean → (se) orăşeniza ‘to urbanize’) and nouns (muşama ‘oil cloth’ → muşamaliza ‘to cover up’), including proper nouns and acronyms. Compared to verbs in -iza, those in -ona formed in Romanian are much fewer in number. They stand in relationship to nouns in '-ţie ('-zie), or with their now less widely used synonymic variants in -ţiune (-ziune) (incluzie or incluziune ‘inclusion’ → incluziona ‘to include’). The numerous derivatives in -ui are mainly denominal (chin → chinui ‘to torment’, gazdă → găzdui ‘to host’). This suffix often occurs also in informal adaptations of English verbs or in verbs derived in Romanian from nouns of English origin (blog(-)ui ‘to blog’). Adaptation of English loanwords can also come about with -ăi (-âi) (bipăi ‘to beep’), which occurs mainly in delocutive verbs derived from onomatopoeic bases (bâz → bâzâi ‘to buzz’).The semantic structure of suffixed verbs is by and large analogous to that of verbs formed by conversion (cf. section 5.3) or parasynthesis.

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs are mainly formed by conversion (cf. section 5.4), but also can be derived with -eşte (-iceşte) and, to a much lesser extent, with -mente (-amente). On the other hand, the suffix -iş (-âş) is no longer productive. The suffix -eşte (-iceşte) attaches to adjectives and nouns; its most important semantic restriction regards colour adjectives, which cannot be bases for adverb derivation. The correspondence between several -eşte (-iceşte) derivatives and denominal adjectives in -esc (-icesc), often allows both deadjectival and denominal readings (prieteneşte ‘like a friend, in a friendly way’ ← prieten ‘friend’ or prietenesc ‘friendly’). The latter is favoured where the corresponding adjective in -esc (-icesc) is archaic or rare. To judge from newly-coined adverbs and nonce-formations

151. Romanian

2747

cited by Mîrzea Vasile (2012), both -eşte and, to a much lesser extent, and sometimes with ironic connotation, -iceşte, continue to be productive (bişniţar ‘racketeer’ or bişniţăresc ‘racketeerish’ → bişniţăreşte; liberal ‘liberal’ → liberaliceşte). A numerically significant subgroup of adverbs in -eşte has glottonyms as bases ([vorbeşte] româneşte ‘[he/ she speaks] Romanian’). The suffix -mente (-amente) occurs in loanwords or calques but, with very few exceptions, only in juridical-administrative terminology and highbrow journalism. Prefixed adverbs are limited to a small group of forms (nelesne ‘uneasily’ ← lesne, răspoimâine ‘two days hence’ ← poimâine ‘the day after tomorrow’). Some adverbs can be bases for evaluative suffixes with endearing and attenuative function (acăsică ← acasă ‘at home’, binişor ← bine ‘well’).

5. Conversion In Romanian there are many productive patterns for the formation of new lexemes by conversion (Stoichiţoiu-Ichim 2006). In the following subsections we will illustrate various patterns classified by output and input category.

5.1. Nominal conversion As in other Romance languages, there is in Romanian more than one type of adjective nominalization by conversion (Pană Dindelegan 2003). A number of nouns are the result of transcategorization due to ellipsis. The omitted head nouns belong to several semantic categories and can be reconstructed (accelerat accelerated ‘fast train’). Other nominalizable adjectives include some denoting qualities considered relevant for animate entities (bătrână old:F ‘old woman’), as well as adjectivizable past participles (cf. section 5.2). In learned registers we also find abstract nouns resulting from conversion of adjectives in their singular masculine form (adânc deep ‘depth’). For derivatives which can be used with either nominal or adjectival functions, or primarily with one of the two, cf. sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.2.1, 4.2.3. As for deverbal nouns formed by conversion, there are various types. The most productive, and the one which, along with suffixation in -re, constitutes the main source for a c t i o n n o u n formation, consists of conversion of the supine, homonym of the past participle in -t/-s, into a neuter noun (dormi → dormit ‘sleeping’, mânca → mâncat ‘eating’, scrie → scris ‘writing’). For the characteristics of this pattern compared with those of suffixation in -re, and for references, see section 4.1.3. Almost unproductive is the formation of action and result nouns by conversion of the verbal root: one group is made up of neuter nouns (îngheţa → îngheţ ‘frost’, omorî → omor ‘murder’), while another smaller group consists of feminine nouns in -ă (certa → ceartă ‘quarrel’, pândi → pândă ‘watch’). No longer productive is the formation of action and result nouns by conversion of the feminine form of the past participle (agonisită ‘earnings’, băută ‘drinking, booze-up’). The few examples of nominalized gerunds, such as intrând ‘recess’, are calques from French.

2748

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

Frequently found in the colloquial register is nominal use of adverbs in -eşte denoting linguistic varieties ([în] nemţeşte ‘[in] German’).

5.2. Adjectival conversion The most productive pattern consists of past participle adjectivization (Pană Dindelegan 2003). The rule is subject to restrictions: it can be applied only to participles of transitive verbs ([persoană] iubită ‘beloved [person]’), intransitive unaccusative verbs representing a telic state-of-affairs ([tren] sosit ‘[train] which has arrived’), psychological verbs ([fată] necăjită ‘worried [girl]’), and intransitive symmetrical verbs ([prietenă] înrudită ‘[girlfriend] who is related’). Participles of unergative and atelic unaccusative verbs cannot be adjectivized (înota ‘to swim’ − *înotat, tremura ‘to tremble’ − *tremurat). Gerund conversion on the French model is found only in the literary language and is not productive ([femei] suferinde ‘ailing [women]’). For derivatives which can be used with either nominal or adjectival function, or primarily with one of the two, cf. sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.2.1, 4.2.3. Certain simplex nouns (marfă ware ‘excellent’), adverbs (bine well ‘handsome, polite’) and interjections (tralala tol-de-rol ‘foolish’) can sporadically function as invariable noun modifiers.

5.3. Verbal conversion Like suffixed and parasynthetic verbs (cf. section 4.3), those formed by conversion are assigned to the 1st or 4th conjugation (Vasiliu 1989). Verbs distinguished only by inflectional class are usually synonyms (curat → (se) curăţa, (se) curăţi ‘to clean’). Bases are nouns (mătură ‘broom’ → mătura ‘to sweep’), adjectives (slab → slăbi ‘to slim’) or, more rarely, adverbs (alături ‘beside’ → (se) alătura ‘to lay by, come near’), interjections (sictir → sictiri ‘to swear’) and onomatopoeia (cotcodac → cotcodăci ‘to cluck, chatter’). Verbs derived from the same base by conversion or parasynthesis are in general (partial) synonyms distinguished by frequency of use (burghez → se burghezi, se îmburghezi ‘to become bourgeois’; fărâmă → (se) fărâma, (se) sfărâma ‘to shatter’); sometimes they are derived from different meanings of the base (gol ‘empty’ → (se) goli ‘to empty’ vs. gol ‘naked’ → (se) dezgoli ‘to undress’). As with parasynthetic and suffixed verbs, interpretation of converted denominal verbs depends on the role of the referent of the base in the state-of-affairs represented: agent, instrument, located entity, etc. Deadjectival causative and/or inchoative verbs denote a change of state, and their semantic characteristics depend on the properties of the bases.

5.4. Adverbial conversion The most productive pattern of adverb formation is conversion of the singular masculine form of a qualifying or relational adjective, simplex or derived, in its literal and/or metaphorical meaning (Mîrzea Vasile 2012). Outputs of the conversion process occur as

151. Romanian

2749

modifiers of a predicate (se îmbracă ciudat ‘he/she dresses oddly’), of an adjective (îmbrăcat ciudat ‘oddly dressed’) or of a sentence (sincer, nu mi place […] ‘honestly, I don’t like […]’). As for semantic restrictions, it has been observed that neither colour adjectives (unless used metaphorically), nor ethnic adjectives, can be converted into adverbs. In informal registers a restricted number of nouns, with their metaphorical meanings and in combination with certain verbs and adjectives, can be converted into adverbs with intensifying function (doarme tun sleeps cannon ‘sleeps soundly’, frumos foc beautiful fire ‘very beautiful’). Some of these can perform both adjectival and adverbial functions, modifying both nouns and verbs.

6. Backformation Backformation is more or less sporadic. As we have seen in section 4.1.1, this device can be used for gender-marking. As for backformed verbs, in section 4.3 we mentioned verbs derived from adjectives in ne-; other verbs are backformed from action, agent or instrument nouns borrowed from other languages (audia ‘to interrogate, hear’ ← audienţă ‘audience’, audiţie ‘hearing, audition’, auditor ‘auditor’; picta ‘to paint’ ← pictor ‘painter’, pictură ‘painting’).

7. Reduplication Most reduplicative constructions are adjectives and adverbs. They consist of sequences with the same word (merge încet-încet goes slowly-slowly ‘he/she goes very slowly’, ureche roşie roşie ear red-red ‘very red ear’) or a derivative of that same word (ajunge câine-câineşte arrives dog-dog:ADV ‘he/she arrives struggling’, telefon nou-nouţ telephone new-new:DIM ‘brand new telephone’) as a reduplicant.

8. Blending Most blends are created with jocular intentions and belong to informal registers or slang. Some are the result of combining the first part of the first lexeme with the second part of the second one (intelectocan ← intelectual ‘intellectual’ + mitocan ‘boor’, jenibil ← jenant ‘unpleasant’ + penibil ‘painful’, loviluţie ← lovitură ‘coup’ + revoluţie ‘revolution’, scârbici(u) ← scârbă ‘disgust’ + servici(u) ‘job’). Others, which border on acronyms, are combinations of the initial parts of two lexemes (aprozar ‘greengrocer’s’ ← apro[vizionare cu] zar[zavat] ‘vegetable supply’).

9. Clipping and acronomy Among lexemes formed by clipping, besides various internationalisms, we find truncated forms of loanwords (lebăr ← lebărvurst ‘liver sausage’), nouns and adjectives typical

2750

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Romance

of the language of young people (dirig/-ă ← diriginte ‘class teacher’, facultă ← facultate ‘faculty’), colloquial registers and slang (naşpa ← naşparliu ‘foolish, bad, ugly’, obo ← obosit ‘tired’, plicti ← plictisit ‘bored’ or plictiseală ‘boredom’, prăji ← prăjitură ‘cake’). To judge from the examples available, we can hypothesize a certain preference for two-syllable outputs. Acronyms (Ciobanu and Hasan 1970; Stoichiţoiu-Ichim 2006) are names of institutions, companies, geographical-political entities and, in informal registers, people. Their formation has at various times in history been subject to the influence of French, Russian and, more recently, English models; many acronyms in use in Romanian today are loans or calques. Acronyms can be formed by extracting the initial letters of the words which constitute the base phrase (BCU ← B[iblioteca] C[entrală] U[niversitară] ‘Central Universitary Library’), or by combining letters with syllables or portions of the base words larger or smaller than a syllable (AGERPRES ← Age[nţia] R[omână de] Pres[ă] ‘Romanian Press Agency’), or by combining fragments of words with each other or sometimes with whole words (Oltcit ← Olt[enia] + Cit[roën], Prodexport ← [Intreprindere de] Prod[use pentru] Export ‘Enterprise for Export Products’). In most cases constituents of acronyms are nouns or adjectives and only rarely prepositions or conjunctions (ApR ← A[lianţa] p[entru] R[omânia] ‘Alliance for Romania’).

10. References Chitoran, Ioana 2002 The Phonology of Romanian. A Constraint-Based Approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ciobanu, Fulvia and Finuţa Hasan 1970 Formarea cuvintelor în limba română. Vol. 1: Compunerea. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei. Cornilescu, Alexandra 2001 Romanian nominalizations: Case and aspectual structure. Journal of Linguistics 37: 467−501. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen and Ion Giurgea (eds.) 2013 A Reference Grammar of Romanian. Vol. 1: The noun phrase. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ernst, Gerhard 1986 Morphologie und Syntax der Relationsadjektive (RA) im Rumänischen: Spezifisches und Gemeinromanisches. In: Günter Holtus and Edgar Radtke (eds.), Rumänistik in der Diskussion. Sprache, Literatur und Geschichte, 317−338. Tübingen: Narr. Fischer, Iancu 1989 Rumänisch: Wortbildungslehre / Formation des mots. In: Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Vol. 3, 33−55. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Giurescu, Anca 1975 Les mots composés dans les langues romanes. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Graur, Alexandru and Mioara Avram (eds.) 1978 Formarea cuvintelor în limba română. Vol. 2: Prefixele. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei. Grossmann, Maria 2012 Romanian compounds. Probus 24(1): 147−173. Hill, Virginia 2002 The gray area of supine clauses. Linguistics 40: 495−517.

151. Romanian

2751

Iordachioaia, Gianina and Elena Soare 2008 Two kinds of event plurals: Evidence from Romanian nominalizations. In: Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7, 193−216 (http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/iordachioaia-soare-eiss7.pdf) [last access 10 Sept 2012]. Maiden, Martin 1999 Il ruolo dell’“idoneità” in morfologia diacronica: I suffissi romeni -ea, -ică ed -oi. Revue de Linguistique Romane 63: 321−345. Maiden, Martin 2001 What sort of thing is a derivational affix? Diachronic evidence from Romanian and Spanish suffixes. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1999, 25−52. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mîrzea Vasile, Carmen 2012 Eterogeneitatea adverbului românesc. Tipologie şi descriere. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela 2003 Aspecte ale substantivizării în limba română actuală: Forme de manifestare a substantivizării adjectivelor. In: Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), Aspecte ale dinamicii limbii române actuale. Vol. 2, 23−41. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) 2013 The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reinheimer-Rîpeanu, Sanda 1974 Les dérivés parasynthétiques dans les langues romanes. Roumain, italien, français, espagnol. The Hague/Bucureşti: Mouton/Editura Academiei. Sala, Marius (ed.) 2001 Enciclopedia limbii române. Bucureşti: Univers Enciclopedic. SMFC 1959−72 Studii şi materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română. 6 Vol. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei. Stan, Camelia 2003 Gramatica numelor de acţiune din limba română. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii. Stoichiţoiu-Ichim, Adriana 2001 Vocabularul limbii române actuale. Dinamică, influenţe, creativitate. Bucureşti: Editura All Educational. Stoichiţoiu-Ichim, Adriana 2006 Creativitate lexicală în româna actuală. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii. Trifan, Elena 2010 Formarea cuvintelor în publicistica actualǎ − Derivarea − Perioada 1990−2001. Cluj Napoca: Editura Digital Data. Vasiliu, Laura 1989 Formarea cuvintelor în limba română. Vol. 3: Sufixele. Part 1: Derivare verbală. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei. Vasiliu, Laura 2009 Formation des mots. In: Gerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt and Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen. Vol. 3, 2710−2721. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Vârlan, Mariana 2012 Derivarea sufixală nominală în româna actuală. Craiova: Universitaria.

Maria Grossmann, L’Aquila (Italy)

Celtic 152. Breton 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Reduplication Borderline cases Diachronic aspects References

Abstract This article offers a description of the three processes of Breton word-formation: composition, prefixation, and suffixation, taking account of the external conditions of the language (speakers, orthography, etc.), including sections on morphophonemic alternations, on Breton idiomatics and finishing with some historical and etymological considerations.

1. Introduction Breton is a member of the Brythonic sub-branch of Celtic, along with Welsh and the extinct Cornish. It is basically the language of emigrants from southern Britain who left their homes from the fifth to the seventh centuries under the pressure of the AngloSaxon invasion and settled in what is today Brittany. It cannot be excluded, however, that Gaulish was still alive to some extent in the area and influenced the language of the invaders. Whether this is actually the case, and, if so, to what extent Breton is of British or of Gaulish origin, is a matter of continuous debate (Fleuriot 1982). The most recent description of modern Breton (history, dialects, grammar, lexicon, texts) is Ternes (2011), an expanded version of Ternes (1992). Among the living Celtic languages, it is Breton that finds itself in the most complicated socio-political situation. The exact number of speakers is unknown, because no official figures are available. There are no censuses in France in which language plays a role. Therefore, one can only make a rough estimate. It seems reasonable to give an approximate number of 200,000 speakers today. Most of these speakers are of the older generation, so that a rapid decline of this figure is to be expected in years to come. There will be only a partial replacement by neo-speakers, i.e. non-native speakers having learnt Breton as a second language after French.

152. Breton

2753

2. General overview 2.1. Word-formation in the literature The most comprehensive treatment of Breton word-formation is Kervella (1995 [1947]: 423−473). A detailed treatment for Old Breton (5th to 11th c.), with etymological annotations, is Fleuriot (1964: 335−407). Le Gonidec’s works of the early 19th century (1807, 1850), which have served as the basis for the modern standard language, do not make specific mention of word-formation. His grammar − in the chapter on nominal gender − does, however, contain a list of suffixes (1807: 46−49; identical with 1850: 20−21), most of them derivational, with specification of the gender associated with these suffixes (section 4.2). Another 19th century classic, Troude (1876), makes no specific mention of word-formation either. But derivational prefixes and suffixes, provided with relevant explanations and examples, are included as special entries in the alphabetically arranged body of the dictionary. In addition, it contains as an appendix a rhyming dictionary of Breton (pp. 679−790). Most scholarly grammars of the 20th century include sections on word-formation, among them Hardie (1948: 45−49, 55−61, 66−67, 173−176, 183), Trépos (1968: 56−66, 101−102), Favereau (1997: 73−82). In addition, many bilingual dictionaries contain a chapter on word-formation, among them Vallée (1931: XV−XLI), Hemon (1970: 9−15), Stéphan and Sèité (1989: 17−20) and Cornillet (2006: XVII−XXI). Ernault (1984 [1927]) has derivational prefixes and suffixes arranged alphabetically in the body of the dictionary. A number of Breton examples (as the only Celtic language) within a world-wide typological perspective are to be found in Štekauer, Valera and Körtvélyessy (2012). There is no reverse dictionary for Breton. The rhyming dictionary forming an appendix in Troude (1876) and the more recent rhyming dictionary by Rohan-Chabot (1982) compensate in part for the lack of a reverse dictionary. Some relevant grammatical terms in Breton are: stummañ gerioù ‘word-formation’, deveradur ‘derivation’, ragger ‘prefix’, lostger ‘suffix’, dibenn ‘ending’, ger kevrenneg ‘compound word’.

2.2. Morphophonemic alternations Among the morphophonemic changes in Breton, m u t a t i o n s play a particularly important role. “Mutations” are morphologically, syntactically, and lexically conditioned alternations of the initial consonant of a word. There are four fundamental mutation types in Breton plus a rudimentary fifth one. Of these, only one type, termed “lenition”, is relevant to word-formation, but this to a considerable extent. Mutations are best described in two horizontal lines, the upper line representing the stem-initial consonant, the lower line the resulting consonant after the application of the relevant mutation, in this case lenition: p b

t d

k g

b v

d z

g c’h

gw w

m v

This mutation type applies to three processes of word-formation, following different rules for every process: a) compounds with the modifier preceding the head, b) com-

2754

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

pounds with the modifier following the head, c) prefixation. Examples: a) dourgi ‘otter’ (dour ‘water’ + ki ‘dog’), b) merc’h-vihan ‘granddaughter’ (merc’h ‘girl, daughter’ + bihan ‘small’), c) peurzebriñ ‘to eat up’ (peur- perfective + debriñ ‘to eat’). Most suffixes in Breton are attached to the final stem consonant without changing it, e.g., brazez ‘pregnant’ (braz ‘big’ + -ez feminine). There are, however, a number of suffixes, among them derivational suffixes, that cause d e v o i c i n g o f t h e f i n a l c o n s o n a n t when attached to the stem, e.g., brasaad ‘to enlarge’ (braz ‘big’ + -aad forming verbs from adjectives). The derivational suffixes with this characteristic are the following: -a, -aad, -ad2, -oni. Among the remaining alternations, the following are the most important ones. Some prefixes assimilate to the initial consonant of the stem, e.g., ken- ~ kem- (concomitant), some suffixes assimilate to the final consonant of the stem, e.g., -der ~ -ter (abstractness). Some suffixes have an alternant form with non-syllabic i, conditioned partly phonemically, partly lexically, e.g., -adur ~ -iadur (result of an action). Umlaut occurs with some suffixes, e.g., -ed (abstract nouns).

2.3. Orthography Breton orthography is a tremendous problem. There are at present five orthographical systems in use. A writer chooses an orthography on political rather than on linguistic grounds. There is no room here to describe the complications involved. If we use a specific orthography in this article (Fr. orthographe unifiée or orthographe zh among other designations), we cannot emphasize strongly enough that this has no political implications whatsoever. The reason is simply that it was through this orthography that we first came into contact with Breton and that we have used it ever since for all purposes: scholarly papers, correspondence, taking notes, etc. The orthographies of the Brythonic languages, including Breton, have a phonemic basis which, despite certain weak points, reflects the actual pronunciation quite well. This is in contradistinction to the Goidelic languages, which have strongly historical orthographies, based on Old Irish. There is, however, a specific defect to most Breton orthographies, which is directly relevant to word-formation. Breton has complex morphophonemic rules which also apply to prefixation and suffixation in word-formation. In addition, it has highly elaborate sandhi rules (sentence phonetics) at word boundaries. Morphophonemics and sandhi interact in a complicated way and may override each other. For non-specialists, it may be difficult to decide in a given case which rule applies. The interplay of these rules has not been well understood by most grammarians, lexicographers and, even more seriously, by the inventors of orthographies. There are therefore many inconsistencies in spelling in this respect. This affects particularly final voiced and voiceless consonants such as d/t, z/s, etc. (cf. section 2.4). We therefore do not follow orthographe unifiée in spelling final consonants, but follow the rules established by Le Ruyet (2012). It should be mentioned that another orthographical system, orthographe universitaire (among other designations), is more consistent in this respect than orthographe unifiée and to some extent corresponds to Le Ruyet’s suggestions.

152. Breton

2755

2.4. Neo-speakers Neo-speakers (Fr. néo-bretonnants) tend to alter the original language under French influence on all levels, from pronunciation to grammar, lexicon, and idiomatics. Madeg (2010) and Le Ruyet (2012) complain about a strong influence of French phonetics on the pronunciation of Breton. This has reverberations on word-formation. An example is the prefixed derivative disglav ‘shelter from the rain’ (dis- privative + glav ‘rain’). Following Breton assimilation rules, the morpheme boundary is phonetically [sk], hence [ˈdisklau̯]. Following French assimilation rules, the morpheme boundary is [zɡ], hence [ˈdizɡlau̯]. Many non-native speakers, influenced also by the spelling, would follow French rules and pronounce indeed [ˈdizɡlau̯]. Spelling is not consistent in this respect. In most cases, it gives the constituents of derived words in their basic form, i.e. before assimilation rules apply, as in the example above. In some cases, however, assimilation is carried through, e.g., kreisteiz ‘midday, noon’ (kreiz ‘middle’ + deiz ‘day’). The suffixes -der and -ter (abstractness) are the same suffix, their use being conditioned by assimilation: uhelder ‘height’ (uhel ‘high’ + -der abstractness), braster ‘greatness, size’ (braz ‘big’ + -der abstractness).

2.5. Processes of word-formation There are three processes of word-formation in Breton: composition, prefixation, and suffixation. They are all widely used, but with regard to frequency of occurrence, the ranking-list would be: suffixation, composition, prefixation. Suffixation certainly takes the lead. This is enhanced by the fact that the growing number of neologisms are formed mainly by suffixation. There is an endeavour to create translational equivalents to French adjectives, abstract nouns, etc., although they may not always be perfectly idiomatic (Hardie 1948: 173; cf. section 7). In older stages of the language, prefixation and compounds with the modifier preceding were proportionally more numerous than they are in the modern language. There are, however, efforts to create neologisms according to the older patterns (section 3). In spite of the restrictions mentioned in section 7, wordformation in Breton is on the whole highly productive and very flexible. In compounds, almost any word class may be combined with any other. Likewise, almost any word class may be transformed into any other through affixation. For that reason, concepts like “denominal”, “deverbal” are less useful for Breton. A given affix may be attached to nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc. Diachronically, many cases of g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n may be observed. Originally independent words have developed into prefixes or suffixes. In some cases, both the original word and the affix subsist, e.g., -our (agent) corresponds to gour ‘man’, -vezh (duration) corresponds to gwezh ‘time’ (as in three times), -va (place of action) corresponds to ma ‘place, area’, treuz- (‘trans-’) corresponds to treuz ‘breadth’. It may therefore be difficult to decide whether a given element is a separate word or an affix and, consequently, whether a given process represents composition or affixation. There are about 15 different suffixes (including a zero suffix) marking the v e r b a l n o u n. In most cases, the suffix is not predictable. In addition, the stem of the verbal noun may differ from the stem used for inflection or derivation by umlaut, dissimilation

2756

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

or other alternations. It may therefore be difficult to identify the stem used for derivation. If deemed necessary, the derivational stem will be added after the verbal noun, as in leskiñ (stem losk-) ‘to burn’. The following abbreviations will be used: coll. for collective and sgt. for singulative (see section 7). For some Breton formations, there is no exact equivalent in the English translation. These are marked approx. for ‘approximately’.

3. Composition In compounds, the modifier either precedes or follows the head. Generally speaking, compounds with a preceding modifier are older and more firmly connected, whereas compounds with a following modifier are more recent and more loosely connected. This general rule may, however, be breached in part by a tendency to create neologisms with preceding modifiers, e.g., penngêr ‘capital (city)’ (penn ‘head’ + kêr ‘city’). In addition, obsolete elements may be resuscitated, e.g., henvrezhoneg ‘Old Breton’ (hen ‘old’ + brezhoneg ‘Breton’). The word ‘old’ normally is kozh which follows the head, e.g., mamm-gozh ‘grandmother’ (mamm ‘mother’ + kozh ‘old’). There are doublets like the older loargann ‘full moon’ (loar ‘moon’ + kann ‘splendour’) and the more recent kannloar. Compounds with a preceding modifier are usually written in one word, whereas compounds with a following modifier are written in two words with a hyphen. In compounds with verbs, the verb usually takes the stem form when it precedes the head and the form of the verbal noun when it follows. Compounds are stressed on the modifying element, whether it precedes or follows. This follows the general rule that stress may not recede further than the penultimate syllable of a word. Thus, penngêr ‘capital (city)’ (penn ‘head’ + kêr ‘city’) is stressed on the first syllable (modifier preceding), whereas tad-kozh ‘grandfather’ (tad ‘father’ + kozh ‘old’) is stressed on the last syllable (modifier following). The doublets loargann and kann-loar ‘full moon’ are both stressed on loar (with an additional reduction of loar): [ˈlwarɡãn], [kãnˈloːar]. When the modifier precedes the head, the latter always undergoes mutation (lenition) irrespective of gender and number (e.g., penngêr ‘capital (city)’ from kêr ‘city’). When the modifier follows the head, the modifier is lenited after a feminine noun in the singular and after a masculine noun in the plural when denoting persons (e.g., mamm-gozh ‘grandmother’ from kozh ‘old’, bugale-vihan ‘grandchildren’ from bihan ‘small’). The mutation may be overridden by sandhi, e.g., noazhtroad ‘barefoot’ (noazh ‘naked’ + troad ‘foot’).

3.1. Modifier preceding Noun + noun: dourgi ‘otter’ (dour ‘water’ + ki ‘dog’) karrdi ‘garage’ (karr ‘car’ + ti ‘house’) morgazh ‘cuttlefish, octopus’ (mor ‘sea’ + kazh ‘cat’) morgaol (coll.) ‘jellyfish’ (pl.) (mor ‘sea’ + kaol ‘cabbage’)

152. Breton

2757 morvleiz ‘shark’ (mor ‘sea’ + bleiz ‘wolf’) rannyezh ‘dialect’ (rann ‘part’ + yezh ‘language’) targazh ‘tomcat’ (tarv ‘bull’ reduced to tar + kazh ‘cat’)

Adj. + noun:

berranal (adj.) ‘short of breath’, (noun) ‘asthma’ (berr ‘short’ + anal ‘breath’) eneblezenn (adj.) ‘illegal’ (eneb ‘contrary, adverse’ + lezenn ‘law’) nevez-amzer ‘spring (season)’ (nevez ‘new’ + amzer ‘time’) noazhtroad (adj.) ‘barefoot’ (noazh ‘naked’ + troad ‘foot’) izelvor ‘low tide’ (izel ‘low’+ mor ‘sea’) uhelvor ‘high tide’ (uhel ‘high’ + mor ‘sea’)

Adj. + adj.:

melen-du ‘brown’ (melen ‘yellow’ + du ‘black’)

Adj. + verb:

brazlenn ‘to read cursorily’ (braz ‘big’ + lenn ‘to read’) gwallgas ‘to maltreat’ (gwall ‘bad’ + kas ‘to send’) tommheoliañ ‘to sunbathe’ (tomm ‘hot’ + heol ‘sun’ + -iañ verbal noun)

Verb + noun:

chomlec’h ‘domicile, address’ (chom ‘to stay’ + lec’h ‘place’) diskar-amzer ‘autumn’ (diskar ‘to decline’ + amzer ‘time’)

Prep. + noun:

raganv ‘first name; pronoun’ (rag ‘in front of’ + anv ‘name’) ragprenañ ‘to subscribe’ (rag ‘in front of’ + prenañ ‘to buy’)

3.2. Modifier following Noun + noun: askell-groc’hen ‘bat’ (askell ‘wing’ + kroc’hen ‘skin’) droug-mor ‘seasickness’ (droug ‘evil’ + mor ‘sea’) kreiznoz ‘midnight’ (kreiz ‘middle’ + noz ‘night’) kreisteiz ‘midday, noon’ (kreiz ‘middle’ + deiz ‘day’) mestr-skol ‘schoolmaster’ (mestr ‘master’ + skol ‘school’) pennglaou ‘great tit (bird)’ (penn ‘head’ + glaou ‘coal’) Most names of countries are formed as compounds with the first element bro ‘country’ (in brackets the respective language, suffix -eg), e.g., Bro-Alamagn ‘Germany’ (alamaneg), Bro-C’hall ‘France’ (galleg), Bro Saoz ‘England’ (saozneg). No compounds: Breizh ‘Brittany’, Iwerzhon ‘Ireland’. Noun + adj.:

boc’hruz ‘robin’ (boc’h ‘cheek’ + ruz ‘red’) mab-bihan ‘grandson’ (mab ‘son’ + bihan ‘small’) merc’h-vihan ‘granddaughter’ (merc’h ‘girl, daughter’ + bihan ‘small’) bugale-vihan ‘grandchildren’ (bugale (pl.) ‘children’ + bihan ‘small’) skol-veur ‘university’ (skol ‘school’ + meur ‘great’)

Noun + verb:

maen-lemmañ ‘whetstone’ (maen ‘stone’ + lemmañ ‘to whet, sharpen’)

2758

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

Adjectives may be intensified by placing a noun or adjective behind them: bouzar-kloc’h ‘stone-deaf’ (bouzar ‘deaf’ + kloc’h ‘bell’) noazh-pilh ‘stark naked’ (noazh ‘naked’ + pilh ‘rag’) klañv fall ‘seriously ill’ (klañv ‘ill’ + fall ‘bad’) mezv-dall ‘completely drunk’ (mezv ‘drunk’ + dall ‘blind’) A special kind of compound consists semantically of an agent as head and a following direct object as modifier. Formally however, the head is not an agent noun, but a verb stem. The object may be a simple noun or a noun preceded by a possessive: torr-maen ‘saxifrage’ (terriñ, stem torr- ‘to break’ + maen ‘stone’) lip-reor ‘arselicker’ (lipad, stem lip- ‘to lick’ + reor ‘arse’) lip-e-werenn approx. ‘drunkard’ (lip- ‘to lick’ + e ‘his’ + gwerenn ‘glass’) kar-e-vro approx. ‘patriot’ (karoud, stem kar- ‘to love’ + e ‘his’ + bro ‘country’) lonk-e-sizhun approx. ‘drunkard’ (lonkañ, stem lonk- ‘to swallow’ + e ‘his’ + sizhun ‘week’, here ‘week’s pay’)

3.3. Interrogatives Most interrogatives are compounds with pe ‘what?’, rarely used on its own, as a first element. The compounds are always stressed on the second element: pegeid ‘how long?’ (keid (adv.) ‘so long, so far’), pegement ‘how much?’ (kement ‘so much’), pegoulz ‘when?’ (koulz ‘time, moment’), pehini ‘which? (sg.)’ (hini dummy word sg.), pelec’h ‘where?’ (lec’h ‘place’), penaoz ‘how?’ (*naoz ‘nature, disposition’), perag ‘why?’ (rag (conjunction) ‘because’), pere ‘which? (pl.)’ (re dummy word pl.), peseurt ‘what kind of?’ (seurt ‘kind, sort’), petra ‘what?’ (tra ‘thing’).

4. Derivation Prefixation and suffixation will be treated separately. Affixes can be classified into the following semantic fields: abstract: adjectivization: agent: augmentation: collective: concomitant: content: contrast: diminution: duration: facility:

-adur, -adurezh, -añs, -ded, -der, -ed, -egezh, -ezh, -ijenn, -iz1, -oni, -oniezh -eg, -el, -uz -er, -our gour2-aj, -ez2 ken-ad1 de-, digou-, -an, -ig -vezh he-

152. Breton feminine: inhabitant: measure: moderation: negation: perfectivity: place: reflexivity, reciprocity: repetition: verbalization:

2759 -ez1, -erez -ad3, -iz2 -ad2 mousnebpeuren-, treuz-, -erezh, -va em1ad-a, -aad

A stem may have a prefix and a series of suffixes at the same time. A compound may be provided with additional affixes. Examples: tu ‘side’ → nebtu ‘neutral’ → nebtueg ‘neutral’ (identical in meaning with the preceding) → nebtuekaad ‘to neutralize’; gwel ‘sight’ → treuzweluz ‘transparent’ → treuzwelusted ‘transparency’; trev ‘district’ → trevad ‘content of a district’ → trevadenn ‘colony’ → trevadenner ‘colonist’ → trevadennerezh ‘colonization’.

4.1. Prefixation Due to their relatively small number, prefixes will simply be listed in alphabetical order: ad- (repetitive) with verbs and nouns: moullañ ‘to print’ advoullañ ‘to reprint’ koan ‘evening meal’ adkoan ‘second (late) evening meal’ de- with verbs (originally opposite, 1st ex.), specific action (2nd ex.): kas ‘to send (away)’ degas ‘to bring (to the speaker)’ kemer ‘to take’ degemer ‘to receive’ di- and dis- (privative, contrastive) with verbs and adjectives: kargañ ‘to load’ digargañ ‘to unload’ plegañ ‘to fold’ displegañ ‘to unfold’ treiñ ‘to turn’ distreiñ ‘to return’ kempenn ‘orderly’ digempenn ‘disorderly’ heñvel ‘similar’ disheñvel ‘dissimilar’ em1- (reflexivity, reciprocity): kannañ ‘to beat’ emgannañ ‘to fight’ kavoud (kav-) ‘to find’ emgav (noun) ‘rendez-vous’ lazhañ ‘to kill’ emlazhañ ‘to commit suicide’ en- ~ em2- (interior): penn ‘head’

empenn ‘brain’

gou- and gour1- (diminutive): kleze ‘sword’ gougleze ~ gourgleze ‘dagger’ enez ‘island’ gourenez ‘peninsula’

2760

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

gour2- (augmentative): lonkañ ‘to swallow’ marc’had ‘market’ he- (facility): lavaroud (lavar-) ‘to say’ ken- ~ kem- (concomitant) breur ‘brother’ pred ‘time, moment’

gourlonkañ ‘to swallow greedily, devour’ gourmarc’had ‘supermarket’ (neologism) helavar (adj.) ‘eloquent’

kenvreur ‘fellow, confrère’ kempred (adj.) ‘contemporary’

mous- (moderation of an action): c’hoarzin ‘to laugh’ mousc’hoarzin ‘to smile’ komz ‘to speak’ mouskomz ‘to whisper’ neb- (‘whoever, whatever’, as a prefix with negative meaning): lec’h ‘place’ neblec’h (adv.) ‘nowhere’ tro (noun) ‘turn, round’ nebtro (adv.) ‘never’ tu ‘side’ nebtu (adj.) ‘neuter’ peur- (perfective): debriñ ‘to eat’ liez ‘often’ treuz- (‘trans-’) with nouns geot ‘grass’ bevañ ‘to live’ gwiskañ ‘to dress’ gwel ‘sight’

peurzebriñ ‘to eat up’ peurliesañ ‘most of the time’ (+ -añ superlative) and verbs: treuzgeot ‘couch grass’ treuzvevañ ‘to survive’ treuzwiskañ ‘to disguise’ treuzweluz ‘transparent’ (+ -uz adjectival suffix)

4.2. Suffixation Some suffixes take over the gender of the stem, either masculine or feminine (e.g., -ad1, -ad2). Other suffixes determine the gender of the derived noun: masculine (e.g., -adur, -der, -ed, -er, -ezh, -our) or feminine (e.g., -adurezh, -ded, -ez, -iz1, -oni, -oniezh). Apart from genuine Celtic suffixes, there are loans from Latin and French, marked as such in the following list. Derivatives will be divided into three groups: (predominantly) nominal, adjectival, and verbal.

4.2.1. Nominal suffixes -ad1 (content): dorn m. ‘hand’ bag f. ‘boat’

dornad m. ‘handful’ bagad f. ‘shipload’

152. Breton

2761

-ad2 (measures), final devoicing: gwalenn f. ‘rod’ gwalennad f. ‘ell’ meud m. ‘thumb’ meutad m. ‘inch’ troad m. ‘foot’ troatad m. ‘foot (measure of length)’ -ad3, pl. -iz2 (inhabitants), -iz from Lat. -enses: Breizh ‘Brittany’ Breizhad, pl. Breizhiz ‘inhabitant(s) of Brittany, Breton(s)’ -adur, variant -iadur (result of an action, mostly neologisms, except 1st ex.), from Lat. -atura: leskiñ (losk-) ‘to burn’ loskadur ‘burn, wound caused by fire’ ger ‘word’ geriadur ‘dictionary’ yezh ‘language’ yezhadur ‘grammar’ levr ‘book’ + lenn ‘to levrlennadur ‘bibliography’ read’ -aj, also written -ach, both pronounced [-aʃ] (collective, often with an ironic or slightly derogatory undertone), from Fr. -age: evañ (ev-) ‘to drink’ evaj, evach approx. ‘drinking stuff’ bugale pl. ‘children’ bugaleaj approx. ‘bunch of children’ -an (diminutive): laouen ‘merry, joyous’

laouenan ‘wren’

-añs (abstract nouns), from Fr. -ance: bevañ (bev-) ‘to live’ bevañs ‘living (money earned), food supply’ doujañ (douj-) ‘to redoujañs ‘respect’ (noun) spect’ -ded (from Lat. -itate) and -der ~ -ter (abstract nouns from adjectives): uhel ‘high’ uhelded, uhelder ‘height’ liez ‘numerous, many’ liester ‘plural’ (neologism) -ed (abstract nouns from adjectives): klañv ‘sick’ kleñved ‘sickness’ (umlaut) sec’h ‘dry’ sec’hed ‘thirst’ yac’h ‘healthy’ yec’hed ‘health’ (umlaut) -er (agent), from Lat. -ariu: kig ‘meat’ milin ‘mill’

kiger ‘butcher’ miliner ‘miller’

Note the difference between pesker ‘fishmonger’ (pesk ‘fish’ sg.) and pesketaer ‘fisherman’ (pesketa ‘to catch fish’). -ez1 (feminine), also after -er (agent): ki ‘dog’ kiez ‘bitch’ braz ‘big’ brazez ‘pregnant’ labour ‘work’ labourer ‘worker (male)’, labourerez ‘worker (female)’

2762

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

-erez (-er agent + -ez1 feminine) also denotes machines (loan translations from French): dornañ ‘to thresh’ dornerez ‘threshing machine’ (Fr. batteuse) gwriad ‘to sew’ gwrierez ‘sewing machine’ (Fr. couseuse) skrivañ ‘to write’ skriverez ‘typewriter’ -ez2 (bretonizes French loans, mostly fruit or vegetables; the resulting word is a collective): karotez coll. ‘carrots’ (Fr. carottes) tomatez coll. ‘tomatoes’ (Fr. tomates) -ezh (abstract nouns from nouns and adjectives): amezeg ‘neighbour’ amezegezh ‘neighbourhood’ pinvidig ‘rich’ pinvidigezh ‘richness’ The suffix -ezh often occurs as the second element in a sequence of two suffixes: -adurezh (abstracts, many neologisms) = -adur (result of an action) + -ezh: deskiñ ‘to learn, teach’ deskadurezh ‘education, instruction’ -egezh (abstract nouns) = -eg (adjectives) + -ezh: ti ‘house’ tiegezh ‘household, family’ -erezh (activity, place of activity) = -er (agent) + -ezh: pesk ‘fish’ peskerezh m. ‘fishing, fishing business’ son ‘song’ sonerezh m. ‘music’ kig ‘meat’ kigerezh f. ‘butcher’s shop’ pesk ‘fish’ peskerezh f. ‘fishmonger’s shop’ -oniezh (sciences, mostly neologisms) = -oni (abstract nouns) + -ezh, no final devoicing here: douar ‘earth’ douaroniezh ‘geography’ stered coll. ‘stars’ steredoniezh ‘astronomy’ barzh ‘bard, poet’ barzhoniezh ‘poetry’ -ig (diminutive, nouns and adjectives): levr ‘book’ levrig ‘booklet’ berr ‘short’ berrig ‘rather short’ This suffix appears in the popularized form -ick in French and Breton first names, e.g., Fr. Pierrick, Bret. Yannick (Fr. Jean). -ijenn (abstract nouns from adjectives): yen ‘cold’ (adj.) yenijenn ‘cold’ (noun) -iz1 (abstract nouns from adjectives): yaouank ‘young’ yaouankiz ‘youth’ -iz2 (see -ad3)

152. Breton

2763

-oni and -toni (abstract nouns from adjectives), final devoicing: braz ‘big’ brasoni ‘pride, conceit’ sod ‘stupid’ sotoni ‘stupidity’ louz ‘dirty’ loustoni ‘dirt’ -our (agent): eneb ‘contrary, adverse’ marc’had ‘market’ dant, pl. dent ‘tooth’

enebour ‘enemy’ marc’hadour ‘shopkeeper, merchant’ dentour ‘dentist’

-va (place of action, resuscitated under the influence of Welsh -fa, neologisms): c’hoari ‘to play’ c’hoariva ‘theatre’ -vezh (duration), corresponding to Fr. -ée, but used more widely: mintin ‘morning’ mintinvezh ‘duration of the morning’, Fr. matinée miz ‘month’ mizvezh ‘duration of the month’ Sul ‘Sunday’ sulvezh ‘duration of the Sunday’

4.2.2. Adjectival suffixes -eg (adjectives from nouns): barv ‘beard’ maen ‘stone’ skouarn ‘ear’

barveg ‘bearded’ maeneg ‘stony’ skouarneg ‘having big ears’

This suffix also serves to denote languages: alamaneg ‘German’, brezhoneg ‘Breton’, galleg ‘French’, saozneg ‘English’. The respective countries are compounds with the first element bro ‘country’ (cf. section 3.2). -el (adjectives from nouns), from Lat. -ale: sant ‘saint’ santel ‘saintly, holy’ tad ‘father’ tadel ‘fatherly, paternal’ -uz (adjectives from verbs and nouns), from Lat. -osu: plijoud (plij-) ‘to please’ plijuz ‘pleasant’ spont ‘fright, terror’ spontuz ‘terrible’

4.2.3. Verbal suffixes -a (verbs ‘to catch, gather, collect’), final devoicing: logod ‘mice’ coll. logota ‘to catch mice’ pesked ‘fish’ pl. pesketa ‘to catch fish’ keuneud ‘firewood’ keuneuta ‘to gather firewood’ kaoc’h ‘shit’ + kezeg kaoc’hkezeka ‘to gather horse droppings’ ‘horses’ pl.

2764

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

-aad (verbs from adjectives, conveys the quality of the adjective), final devoicing: blod ‘soft’ blotaad ‘to soften’ braz ‘big’ brasaad ‘to enlarge’ kozh ‘old’ koshaad ‘to grow older’

5. Conversion There is no clear dividing-line between word classes in Breton. Nouns may be used as adjectives so that adjectival derivation is not necessary. This is particularly true for nouns denoting materials. Adjectives like Engl. golden or wooden are not required in Breton, because the respective Breton nouns used in attributive position have adjectival value, e.g., chadenn aour ‘gold necklace’ (chadenn ‘chain, necklace’ + aour ‘gold’), loa koad ‘wooden spoon’ (loa ‘spoon’ + koad ‘wood’). Other nouns may serve as adjectives as well without further change, e.g., toull ‘hole’ and ‘pierced’, kann ‘brightness, splendour’ and ‘bright’. The word embann may be a noun ‘publication’ or a verb ‘to publish’. The word disglav (dis- privative + glav ‘rain’) may be a noun ‘shelter from the rain’, an adjective ‘sheltered from the rain’ or a verb ‘to shelter from the rain’. The word eneb may be a noun ‘opposite’ or an adjective ‘contrary, adverse’ so that it is difficult to decide whether enebour ‘enemy’ (-our agent) is derived from the noun or from the adjective. An adjective can be derived from a noun without taking an adjectival suffix, e.g., kempred ‘contemporary’ (kem- concomitant + pred ‘time, moment’). Conversely, a noun may be derived from an adjective without further derivational mark, e.g., louz ‘dirty’ → louzoù ‘herbaceous plants, medical plants’ (pl. suffix -où). An adjective like penneg ‘stubborn, obstinate’ (penn ‘head’ + -eg adjectival suffix) may also be a noun ‘obstinate person’. A verb can be derived from another word class without any particular mark. The verbal noun suffix is simply added to the stem, e.g., (nouns) dour ‘water’ → dourañ (stem dour-) ‘to water’, had ‘seed’ → hadañ (stem had-) ‘to sow’, (adj.) louz ‘dirty’ → louzañ (stem louz-) ‘to dirty’; (interrogative) perag ‘why?’ → peragiñ (stem perag-) ‘to ask questions’. It should be noted in this context that in grammatical descriptions of modern Celtic languages, the term infinitive is avoided, the term verbal noun being used instead. This is because of the markedly nominal characteristics of this form. A verbal noun may serve as an ordinary noun, e.g., kousked ‘to sleep’ and ‘sleep’ (noun). It is remarkable that, in spite of the multifarious functions of one and the same word and in spite of the flexible transition of one word class into another, Breton has nevertheless a highly developed system of word-formation through affixation.

6. Reduplication Adjectives may be intensified through reduplication. There is no formal difference between adjectives and adverbs in Breton. Reduplication may take various forms: a) simple juxtaposition of the same word; b) the same word appears in the comparative in the first place and in its stem form in the second; c) two identical words, the second with the

152. Breton

2765

privative prefix di-; d) two identical words connected by ha ‘and’, the second with the contrastive prefix dis-: a) b) c) d)

buan ‘quick(ly)’ buan-buan ‘very quick(ly)’ tost ‘near’ tost-tost ‘very near’ pell ‘far’ pelloc’h-pell ‘farther and farther’ tost ‘near’ tostoc’h-tost ‘nearer and nearer’ klañv ‘sick’ klañv-diglañv approx. ‘sickish’ kan ha diskan ‘a style of traditional singing’ (kan ‘singing’ + diskan lit. ‘countersinging’, i.e. ‘refrain’)

7. Borderline cases Although the three processes of word-formation (composition, prefixation, suffixation) are widely used, there are various characteristics of Breton grammar and stylistics that restrict the necessity for forming new words (see also section 5 on conversion): Some suffixes are on the borderline between inflection and derivation. The suffix -enn, serving various purposes, will be treated here as a typical example (cf. Irslinger 2010). In Breton, nouns fall into two classes: a) singular stems from which the plural is formed through various morphological processes; b) collective stems from which the singular is formed by adding the suffix -enn (feminine). Singulars derived from collective stems are referred to as “singulatives”, in order to distinguish them from singular stems, see article 65 on singulatives. Semantically, collectives denominate animals, plants or other objects occurring in great masses, e.g., logod ‘mice’ → logodenn ‘mouse’, mouar ‘blackberries’ → mouarenn ‘blackberry’, blev ‘hair’ (coll.) → blevenn ‘hair’ (sgt.). This is part of the morphological description of the language. In many cases, however, the singulative is semantically related to the collective, but has to be translated by a different word, e.g., korf ‘body’ → korfenn ‘bodice, blouse’, levr ‘book’ → levrenn ‘volume’. It may also denote a concept that is not equivalent to a single word in the translation, but rather to a compound or even a longer phrase, e.g., geot ‘grass’ → geotenn ‘blade of grass’, glav ‘rain’ → glavenn ‘raindrop’, gwer ‘glass (material)’ → gwerenn ‘1. drinking glass, 2. window-pane’, kouevr ‘copper’ → kouevrenn ‘piece of copper wire’, erc’h ‘snow’ → erc’henn ‘area covered with snow’. Singulatives with the suffix -enn may also be derived from adjectives, e.g., blod ‘soft’ → blodenn ‘soft inner part of the bread, crumb’ (Fr. mie du pain), hesk ‘dried up’ → heskenn ‘cow that gives no milk’, koant ‘pretty’ → koantenn ‘pretty girl’. The suffix -enn also serves to bretonize foreign loans, e.g., kazetenn ‘newspaper’ (Fr. gazette), pajenn ‘page’ (Fr. page). Stump (1990) discusses the difficulty in Breton of distinguishing between inflection and derivation in their traditional meaning and proposes a redefinition of these terms in order to account for the Breton data. In neologisms, ample use is made of word-formative elements, e.g., yezhadur ‘grammar’ (yezh ‘language’ + -adur result of an action), geriadur ‘dictionary’ (ger ‘word’ + -iadur variant of -adur), douaroniezh ‘geography’ (douar ‘earth’ + -oniezh sciences). But Hardie (1948: 173) rightly remarks that a prefixed derivative like advoullañ ‘to reprint’ (ad- repetitive + moullañ ‘to print’) is less idiomatic, and a multi-word expres-

2766

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

sion such as moullañ ur wech-all ‘to print another time’ would be “more in agreement with the genius of the language”. In the bilingual online catalogue of a Breton publisher, the French heading Nouveautés ‘novelties’ corresponds to Bret. Nevez embannet ‘newly published’. Rather than using the abstract noun jedadur ‘calculation’ (jediñ, stem jed‘to calculate’ + -adur result of an action) in the expression ar pevar jedadur ‘the four calculations’, it would be more idiomatic to say ar pevar doare-jediñ ‘the four kinds of calculating’ (Kervella 1995 [1947]: 455). Nevertheless, neologisms formed through affixation are very common. In Stéphan and Sèité (1989), neologisms are marked with an asterisk (*).

8. Diachronic aspects 8.1. Cross-blending Blending in the ordinary sense is not a common process in Breton word-formation. But there is an interesting historical development which we tentatively call “cross-blending”. An original compound, usually consisting of a head noun followed by an attributive genitive, is reduced in the following way: The first (head) noun is dropped, but its meaning is transferred to the second (attributive) noun, which in turn loses its own meaning. This can be represented schematically (phon1 + sem1) + (phon2 + sem2) > (phon2 + sem1). The result is a noun with the meaning of the dropped noun in the phonetic guise of the second noun. We will adduce four examples, a) general Celtic, b) general Brythonic, c) general Breton, d) a specific Breton dialect: a) The word ‘kiss’ (noun) in modern Celtic is Bret. pok, Ir. póg, Sc.Gael. pòg. Only Welsh has a different word cusan (from English). Bret. pok and its cognates are derived from Lat. osculum pacis lit. ‘kiss of peace’, originally a ceremonial kiss in Catholic liturgy. The modern word has no religious connotations. It is the everyday word for ‘kiss’, including sexual implications. b) Bret. dir, Welsh dur ‘steel’ from Lat. ferrum durum ‘hard iron’. c) In Breton morphology, suppletion is quite common. Many domestic animals have a suppletive plural, among them ki ‘dog’, pl. chas. The plural form is derived from Fr. chiens de chasse ‘hounds; lit. dogs of hunting’. d) The word ‘book’ in Breton normally is levr (from Lat. liber ‘book’). In the Breton dialect of the Isle of Groix (lower Vannetais, southern Brittany, off the city of Lorient, Ternes 1970), ‘book’ is [yːriˈjew]. This is from Fr. livre d’heures ‘book of hours’, a Christian devotional book containing prayers for spiritual practice. Fr. heures appears as [yːr], provided with the Breton plural suffix [-iˈjew]. The word [yːriˈjew], however, functions as a singular. In the plural, it takes an additional plural suffix [-iːr]: pl. [yːrijeˈwiːr] ‘books’. The Groix word is devoid of any religious connotations.

8.2. Opaque formations Many historical formations are not transparent any longer, e.g., ehan ‘stop, pause’ (noun) with a former prefix *eks- ‘out’, doan ‘sorrow’ with a former prefix do- ‘bad’. Some

152. Breton

2767

historical formations are particularly interesting from a linguistic or cultural point of view. Two examples: a) The word bugel ‘child’ is originally a compound the first element of which is *bou̯ ‘cow’. The word originally means ‘cowherd’. It is directly comparable to Greek βουκόλος ‘cowherd’. b) The word moereb ‘aunt’ is composed of the stem *māter ‘mother’ followed by a petrified suffix -eb. Otherwise, the Indo-European word for ‘mother’ did not survive in Breton and has been replaced by mamm ‘mother’ from child language.

8.3. Speculative etymologies Two Breton compounds have acquired a reputation for having given rise to etymological speculations. The first compound is an actually existing one, the second one is hypothetical: a) Engl. cormorant ‘large black sea-bird’ (Fr. cormoran, without final -t) was said to come from Bret. morvran ‘cormorant’ (mor ‘sea’ + bran ‘raven’), with pleonastic anteposition of Old Fr. corp ‘raven’. It is agreed now, however, that Fr. cormoran (hence Engl. cormorant) comes from Lat. corvus marinus ‘sea-raven’ (Gamillscheg 1969: 263). b) The etymology of Engl. penguin ‘Antarctic sea-bird which cannot fly’ is completely unclear. A suggestion has been made that it comes from Bret. *penngwenn ‘whitehead’ (penn ‘head’ + gwenn ‘white’), formerly also written *penguen. This would presuppose that Breton sailors had taken part in expeditions to the Antarctic. Given the affinity of the inhabitants of Brittany to seafaring, this possibility cannot be excluded. The etymology can neither be proved nor disproved. The only other suggestion, a derivative from Lat. pinguis ‘fat’ (adj.), is no more convincing.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Jean-Claude Le Ruyet for valuable suggestions and Peter Hill for improving on my English style. Responsibility is of course my own.

9. References Cornillet, Gérard 2006 Wörterbuch Bretonisch-Deutsch, Deutsch-Bretonisch. Geriadur Brezhoneg-Alamaneg, Alamaneg-Brezhoneg. 3rd ed. Hamburg: Buske. Ernault, Emile 1984 [1927] Geriadurig brezoneg-galleg. 2nd ed. Brest: Brud Nevez [1st ed. 1927 SaintBrieux: Prudhomme]. Favereau, Francis 1997 Grammaire du breton contemporain. Yezhadur ar brezhoneg a-vremañ. Morlaix: Skol Vreizh.

2768

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

Fleuriot, Léon 1964 Le vieux breton. Eléments d’une grammaire. Paris: Klincksieck. Fleuriot, Léon 1982 Les origines de la Bretagne. Paris: Payot. Gamillscheg, Ernst 1969 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der französischen Sprache. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Winter. Hardie, D[avid] W. F. 1948 A Handbook of Modern Breton (Armorican). Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Hemon, Roparz 1970 Nouveau dictionnaire breton-français. 4th ed. Brest: Al Liamm. Irslinger, Britta 2010 Les dérivés gallois, cornique en -yn/-en, breton en -enn et irlandais en -ne: Fonction et sémantique. La Bretagne Linguistique 15: 43−81. Kervella, F[rañsez] 1995 [1947] Yezhadur bras ar brezhoneg. 3rd ed. Brest: Al Liamm [1st ed. 1947 La Baule: Skridoù Breizh]. Le Gonidec, Jean-François 1807 Grammaire celto-bretonne. Paris: Lebour. Le Gonidec, Jean-François 1850 Dictionnaire breton-français, précédé de sa grammaire bretonne. Saint-Brieux: Prud’homme. Le Ruyet, Jean-Claude 2012 Bien prononcer le breton d’aujourd’hui. Les liaisons. Morlaix: Skol Vreizh. Madeg, Mikael 2010 Traité de prononciation du breton du Nord-Ouest à l’usage des bretonnants. Brest: Emgleo Breiz. Rohan-Chabot, B[éatrice] de 1982 Geriadur klotennoù. Roazhon: Imbourc’h. Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera and Lívia Körtvélyessy 2012 Word-Formation in the World’s Languages. A Typological Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stéphan, Laurent and Visant Sèité 1989 Lexique breton-français et français-breton. 20th ed. No place: Emgleo-Breiz. Stump, Gregory T. 1990 Breton inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In: Randall Hendrick (ed.), The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages, 97−119. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ternes, Elmar 1970 Grammaire structurale du breton de l’Ile de Groix. Heidelberg: Winter. Ternes, Elmar 1992 The Breton language. In: Donald MacAulay (ed.), The Celtic Languages, 371−452. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ternes, Elmar 2011 Neubretonisch. In: Elmar Ternes (ed.), Brythonic Celtic − Britannisches Keltisch. From Medieval British to Modern Breton, 431−530. Bremen: Hempen. Trépos, Pierre 1968 Grammaire bretonne. Rennes: Imprimerie Simon [Reprint 1980 Rennes: Ouest-France]. Troude, A[mable]-E[mmanuel] 1876 Nouveau dictionnaire pratique breton-français du dialecte de Léon. Brest: Lefournier. Vallée, François 1931 Grand dictionnaire français-breton. Avec le concours de E. Ernault et R. Le Roux. Rennes: Imprimerie Commerciale de Bretagne.

Elmar Ternes, Hamburg (Germany)

153. Welsh

2769

153. Welsh 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Reduplication Blending Clipping Conclusion References

Abstract This article offers an overview of Welsh word-formation. It is split broadly into sections on compounds and derivatives, the former still being an important and productive category in Welsh.

1. Introduction Before the 1990s, it would have been very difficult to write an article on Welsh wordformation or indeed the word-formation of any Celtic language. There was a useful section in Pedersen’s comparative grammar (Pedersen 1909−13 Vol. 2: 1−63) on Celtic word-formation which contains the basic information on Welsh, but it was curiously omitted from the concise English version (Lewis and Pedersen 1961). There were occasional overviews, such as Watkins (1961: 86−131), and modern grammars of the language usually contain a survey of the derivational morphology of the language however minimal (King 1993: 86−89; Thomas 1996: 615−680). There have been studies of particular groups or types of suffixes often from a historical perspective, e.g., Russell (1989) on agent suffixes; Russell (1990) on velar suffixes; Zimmer (1990) on suffixes derived from Latin; Russell (1996) on suffixes derived from the second elements of compounds, but only in 2000 was a full study of Welsh word-formation published (Zimmer 2000). In contrast to the relatively recent blossoming of interest in word-formation, Welsh has long been extremely well served by that crucial tool for studying word-formation, the reverse dictionary, mainly because it is also a vital source for poets seeking innovative and interesting rhymes; the earliest such dictionary was Ellis (1874) followed a century later by Stephens (1978), and then Zimmer (1987), the last being based on a dictionary of modern Welsh (Evans 1981) and therefore lacking the range of vocabulary for the poet but useful for a linguist interested in the derivational patterns of the modern language (cf. Russell 1988).

2770

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

2. General overview Welsh belongs to the Brittonic branch of the Celtic languages along with Cornish and Breton. The earliest evidence for a distinctive Welsh language only begins to emerge in the eighth and ninth centuries AD, though some features are visible in single name forms from the sixth and seventh (Russell 1995: 111−136). Welsh had and continues to have a strong literary tradition which has helped the language sustain itself against the pressure of English. The latest survey data (2011) indicated that Welsh is spoken by ca. 562,000 (19 % of the population of Wales, a drop of 2 % since 2001), the majority being located in the west and north-west of the country. Current trends indicate a slight decrease in the number of Welsh-speakers. Welsh has a wide range of derivational patterns using a wide range of suffixes and prefixes, the number of which are increased through borrowing from Latin in particular but also from English. Welsh has also retained a strikingly productive pattern of compound formation as well. In what follows, only a brief selection can be provided; further examples and details can be found in Zimmer (2000). It may also be helpful at this point to introduce another important feature of the Welsh language which impinges on the following discussion, the system of initial mutations which can be used to mark grammatical distinctions (Russell 1995: 230−257). The soft mutation (also known as lenition) is the most common and involves the following changes in initial stops, /p t k/- to /b d g/- and /b d g m/- to /v ð ø μ/-. These mutations are most likely to be encountered in word-formation where adjectives following feminine singular nouns are lenited, e.g., bachgen galluog ‘a clever boy’ vs. merch alluog ‘a clever girl’. Lenition is also used to mark a compound by the mutation of the intital consonant of the second element of the compound, e.g., allfro ‘foreigner’ (< all- ‘other’ + bro ‘country’), etc.

3. Composition A word on terminology is necessary. Since compounds play an important role in Welsh verse composition, the native terminology of their classification is well established (Williams 1980: 122−124): “proper compound” (cyfansoddair rhywiog): second element lenited; a) strict compound (cyfansoddair clwm): single stress on second element; b) loose compound (cyfansoddair llac): both elements stressed; “improper compound” (cyfansoddair afrywiog): second element unlenited. In linguistic terms it is difficult usefully to see the second type, “improper compound”, as a compound at all as they are usually indistinguishable from a phrase. Zimmer, in his major work on Welsh word-formation, uses the Sanskrit terminology conventional among Indo-Europeanists which is not very well suited to the Welsh patterns (cf. Zimmer 2000: 6−7); for example, there is a common form of exocentric compound which is described as a “reversed bahuvrīhi” (Zimmer 2000: 176−179), e.g., penwan ‘weak-headed’ (pen ‘head’ + (g)wan ‘weak’) in that the elements are in the reverse order of a normal bahuvrīhi, adjective + noun, e.g., eurglawr ‘with a golden cover’ (aur ‘gold’ +

153. Welsh

2771

clawr ‘cover’). Neoclassical compounds will not form part of the discussion in that they are almost always either calqued on English and Latin/Greek terms (Davies 2000) or simply borrowed: for the former, amlochrog ‘multilateral’ (aml- ‘many, frequent’ + ochr ‘side’ + -og ‘-al’), for the latter, hidroffobia ‘hydrophobia’, hidroclorid ‘hydrochloride’. Formally, compounds are usually identifiable by the lenition of the initial consonant of the second element, e.g., trobwll ‘whirlpool’ (tro ‘turn’ + pwll ‘pool’), bleiddgi ‘wolfhound’ (bleidd ‘wolf’ + ci ‘dog’), and they conform to the usual stress patterns of Welsh in that the stress is on the penultimate syllable. That is how one can distinguish between hen ŵr ‘old man’ (where ŵr is lenited from gŵr because preposed adjectives cause lenition) and henwr ‘old person, one of the ancients’; the former is stressed on ŵr, but henwr is stressed on the first syllable.

3.1. Nominal compounds The following categories of nominal compounds are found in Welsh; the examples and discussion can only be illustrative of the wide range of patterns (for fuller discussion, see Zimmer 2000: 1−220). I do not provide dates for the examples, unless there is something significant to be said about the chronology, but most of the examples provided here reflect the patterns of the language in the last hundred years or so, even if the patterns, and in some cases the compounds themselves, have a very long historical pedigree. The structure of the following discussion is based on a basic distinction between endocentric and exocentric compounds; in Welsh the latter are always adjectival, i.e. characterized by noun + adjective. One problem is that there is no formal distinction between the two types, and so there is a high degree of homonymy, e.g., drygwaith ‘bad deed’ (drwg ‘bad’ + gwaith ‘deed’) (endocentric noun) but also ‘bad, unfortunate’ (exocentric adjective) (Zimmer 2000: 135−143). This may be one reason why Welsh evidences a shift from exocentric adjective + noun compounds, which seem to be the inherited pattern to a reversed type noun + adjective (what Zimmer 2000: 176−179 calls a “reversed bahuvrīhi”). Another complication in Welsh is that the use of compounds is an important and characteristic element in poetic diction, particularly of the medieval period. Compounds have an in-built ambiguity within lines of Welsh verse; formally the different types cannot be distinguished and so the poet could exploit the ambiguous relationship both between the two elements of the compound and between its nominal and adjectival status.

3.1.1. Determinative compounds The elements of an endocentric compound can stand in almost any logical relationship to each other (see Zimmer 2000: 23−133); thus, berfenw ‘verbal noun; lit. verb-noun’, bwydlen ‘menu; lit. food-sheet’, mordaith ‘voyage; lit. sea-journey’, llyfrgell ‘library; lit. book-cell’, llofnod ‘signature; lit. hand-note’, etc. A particularly productive category involves the names of trees, usually compounds with second element gŵydd ‘trees’, e.g., ffawydd ‘beech trees’, pinwydd ‘pines’, etc. Some of the forms in this group seem learned (often attested first and sometimes only in lexicographical sources), and it may be that -(g)ŵydd here is being used as a generic marker rather like -wort is used in English for plant names.

2772

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

Among these compounds there are several productive second elements, e.g., -dy ‘house’: abaty ‘abbey’, beudy ‘cow-shed’; -llu ‘host’: heddlu ‘police; lit. peace-host’; -fa ‘place’: mynedfa ‘exit; lit. going-place’, eisteddfa ‘sitting-place’; -rwy ‘binding’: modrwy ‘ring; lit. thumb-binding’, breichrwy ‘arm-ring’, etc. In the case of -fa, the basic version of the second element, ma ‘place’, has not been attested since the fourteenth century, but the form has survived and become productive as a second element in compounds, and has arguably become a suffix (Zimmer 2000: 370−389; Russell 1996: 116). The verbal element -rwy which is related to the verb rhwymo ‘to bind’ is also not attested as a separate element, whether nominal or verbal, and likewise has moved towards suffix status. In other cases, the form of the second element has survived but a semantic gap has opened up between its meaning as an independent lexical item and its more bleached, abstract usage in a compound; for example, gwedd ‘aspect, appearance’: -(g)wedd, e.g., rhinwedd ‘secret’, ffurfwedd ‘form, configuration’, where the second element has moved further towards being a marker of abstraction. Such a process, sometimes termed “suffixization”, sits on the cusp between being second elements of compounds and suffixes, and present certain difficulties of analysis (see Russell 1996); the crucial point to note here is that there is by no means a clear-cut distinction between compounds and derivatives as the textbooks would suggest. Compounds containing verbal elements are also attested in Welsh in both forms, verb + noun, e.g., lladdaroglau ‘deodorant; lit. kill smells’ and noun + verb, e.g., lleufer ‘light; lit. light bearing’ (Zimmer 2000: 197−224). Many of these forms are either early or relatively rare and learned, and it is not clear that it is a very productive category. One issue which arises is that the nominal parts of verbs in Welsh (called verbal nouns) are in formal terms closely related to verbs, and so it is not easy to tell whether a compound consists of, for example, verb + noun or verbal noun + noun; for example, Gorffennaf ‘July’ might be analysed as gorffen ‘end’ + haf ‘summer’ or as gorffen ‘finishing’ + haf (traditionally summer is defined as the three months of May (Welsh Mai), June (Welsh Mehefin lit. ‘mid-summer’), and July (Welsh Gorfennaf)).

3.1.2. Appositive compounds Appositive compounds consist of two elements of the same morphological category (Zimmer 2000: 14−22). Generally, they signify a sense of combination of the characteristics of the two elements, e.g., gwaywfwyell ‘halberd; lit. spear axe’, mwyarafan ‘loganberries; lit. blackberry raspberry’, etc. Many such forms are adjectival and exemplified in section 3.2.1. In some cases, however, especially when the two words are close to synonymous, the combination can indicate intensification, e.g., boncyff ‘stump’, bwystfil ‘wild beast’ (bwyst + mil), anghenraid ‘necessity’, etc.

3.2. Adjectival compounds 3.2.1. Endocentric compounds There are relatively few cases of endocentric adjectival compounds in Welsh. They are to be distinguished from the exocentric adjectival compounds in that the relationship

153. Welsh

2773

between the elements is different; the adjective in second position is modified by the preceding noun which “stands in a particular logical relationship to which would otherwise have been expressed by putting it in a certain grammatical case” (Zimmer 2000: 128). One particularly productive group is those with a second element -lon ‘full’, the fully stressed adjective being llawn: e.g., ffrwythlon ‘fruitful’, graslon ‘full of grace’; and other examples are cysegrlan ‘holy’ (cysegr ‘consecration’ + glan ‘pure’, i.e. ‘pure through consecration’), gwaedrudd ‘blood-red’ (gwaed ‘blood’ + rhudd ‘red’, i.e. ‘red like blood’). We may contrast that with exocentric compounds where generally the adjective/noun or noun/adjective compounds simply imply an attributive relationship between the adjective and noun.

3.2.2. Appositive compounds The majority of appositive compounds are adjectival, e.g., coegfalch ‘arrogant; lit. empty proud’ (Zimmer 2000: 14−22). One important group involves combinations of colours, e.g., brithlwyd ‘speckled grey’, cochrudd ‘crimson; lit. red red’, gwynias ‘white-hot; lit. white hot’. Although numerals are not normally classified as true adjectives, in Welsh they can form compounds in the same way, e.g., deuddeg ‘twelve; lit. two ten’, pymtheg ‘fifteen; lit. five ten’.

3.2.3. Exocentric compounds Exocentric compounds in Welsh are adjectival and generally take the form adjective + noun (Zimmer 2000: 134−196), e.g., iselgradd ‘inferior (low + grade)’, gwangalon ‘weak-hearted; lit. weak heart’, rhywfodd ‘somehow; lit. some mode’; a frequent pattern consists of number + noun, e.g., deulais ‘two-voiced; lit. two voice’, tridaint ‘threepronged; lit. three tooth/prong’, wythblyg ‘octavo; lit. eight fold’, etc. Exocentric compounds, otherwise indistinguishable from endocentric compounds, were also remarked with adjectival suffixes in order to clarify the adjectival status, e.g., amlonglog ‘polygonal; lit. many corner + suffix -og’, mawrfrydig ‘magnanimous; lit. great spirit + suffix -ig’ (Zimmer 2000: 153−156). While the pattern illustrated above is adjective + noun, there are also frequent instances of the reversed pattern noun + adjective which may have arisen to distinguish the exocentric compounds from the endocentric ones (Zimmer 2000: 176−196, esp. 178− 179); the largest category involves compounds referring to parts of the body, e.g., bronfraith ‘thrush; lit. breast speckled’, llawagor ‘generous; lit. hand open’, pennoeth ‘bareheaded; lit. head bare’, etc.

3.3. Univerbated compounds Most languages also contain compounds, such as English forget-me-not (plant-name), good-for-nothing, French pisse-en-lit ‘dandelion’, etc. (Zimmer 2000: 225−226) where

2774

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

univerbation has occurred. They differ from the formations discussed above in that they contain syntactically complete phrases. Tracking them down can be problematic as they often seem to exist at a sub-literary level and so evade the lexicographer. Even so, a few such forms are attested in Welsh: bechingalw ‘thing, stuff’ representing shortenings of beth ydych chi’n galw?, which seems to correspond to the English what-d’you-call-it; bechma from beth ydy/yw yma? ‘what is this here?’ influence by bech- of the previous example. There are also a group of forms which seem more artificial and may be calques, e.g., dialwynôl ‘irrevocable’ (di-(g)alw-yn-ôl ‘not-call-back’).

4. Derivation Welsh displays a full range of derivational patterns, most of which are deeply embedded in the history of the language with cognate patterns in related languages. Even so, lengthy contact with Latin and then with English has left its mark on the derivational patterns of the language. Interestingly, Latin suffixes have been absorbed into the language along with the numerous loanwords; thus, for example, the Welsh adjectival suffix -us /īs/ has its origin in the Latin suffix -ōsus. On the other hand, very few, if any, English suffixes have been absorbed in the same way; rather we see the suffixes being calqued, e.g., Welsh -lon for English -ful, -adwy for -able (Zimmer 2000: 128−129, 461− 464 respectively), or in one instance perhaps borrowed, -mon for -man (Zimmer 2000: 553; Russell 1996: 123−124). Two further observations are worth making at this point in order to avoid cluttering the following discussion with too many small details. First, it is characteristic of Welsh of all periods that in many derivational formations a “pre-suffixal yod” can appear between the stem and the suffix; for example, both dreiniog and dreinog ‘hedgehog’, asgyrniog and asgyrnog ‘bony’, etc. are attested. There are certain phonological constraints that prevent yod; for example, it only occurs when the suffix has a mid- or back vowel and cannot occur after consonantal u̯: thus only marwol ‘fatal’ (marw ‘dead’) is attested, never marwiol. But all other things being equal, it is clear that the distribution of the variants is regional and can be traced in broad terms from the medieval period onwards: yod-variants are northern and yod-less southern (Russell 1990: 39−60; Thomas 1992: 292−294, 1993: 25−28; Willis 2005). In what follows examples are more likely to contain the yod but that is simply an accident of selection and has no further significance. Secondly, stems whose default semantics are plural or collective can base their derivatives on the plural form, e.g., petheuach ‘odds and ends’ (← pethau ‘things’), blodeuog ‘flowery’ (← blodau ‘flowers’), etc. (Russell 1990: 118−119; for more general discussion, Chapman 1995). Historically, a number of these forms are based on the oblique stem of the nominal declension which would have been the originally usual stem on which to base a derivative, but with the loss of declension in Brittonic languages, it appears that the mechanism then only survived in cases where the original oblique stem corresponded to the plural form and also the default semantics were plural or collective. Another point should also be made. Distinguishing deverbal and denominal derivation is generally very difficult in Welsh, though possible in occasional instances; for the base for deverbal derivation is usually the same as the form of the verbal noun. Most verbal nouns are marked by a vocalic suffix, such as -i, -u, -(i)o, or no suffix at all for many

153. Welsh

2775

denominative verbs (see article 69 on verbal nouns in Celtic); such suffixes tend to disappear in derivation and thus the stem is indistinguishable from the verbal stem itself in many cases. For that reason and for reasons of space, deverbal derivation is not treated separately in what follows.

4.1. Prefixation Rather than scattering comments on prefixation throughout the section, it is discussed first to allow some of the generalities to emerge. Welsh has a large range of inherited prefixes, many of which can be added to nouns, adjectives and verbs to modify the meaning (Zimmer 2000: 228−231), e.g., am- ‘around’, cy(f)- ‘with, joint-’, gwrth‘against’ (often used to calque contra- or anti- in Latin or English), ym- to mark reciprocity or reflexivity, dad- to indicate a repeated or reverse action (cf. re- in English), e.g., ymladd ‘to fight; lit. to strike one another’, golchi ‘to wash’ vs. ymolchi ‘to wash (oneself)’ (cf. French se laver), gwrthateb ‘to contradict, refute’ (← ateb ‘to answer’), dadflino ‘to refresh’ (← blino ‘to be tired’). Two types of prefix are worth considering in more detail. The standard and productive privative prefix in Welsh is di-, which is usually used with nouns to form adjectives, e.g., diacen ‘unaccented’, diachos ‘without reason’, diaros ‘without delay’, etc. (Zimmer 2000: 232−249). Early Welsh also had a pair of prefixes to indicate ‘well-’ vs. ‘badly-’, namely hy- and dy- respectively. They reflect a survival of an ancient pattern attested in Old Irish (so- and do-) and in Classical Greek eu- and dys- (Zimmer 2000: 250−270). Productivity fell away in the late medieval period and since then it seems only to have remained productive among lexicographers and others seeking to calque Latin or Greek terms. Its lack of productivity is illustrated by the fact that Zimmer (2000: 269) can only identify four actual pairs, e.g., hylaw ‘handy’ vs. dylaw ‘clumsy’ (← llaw ‘hand’), and even then it is far from clear that authors understood that they were antonyms.

4.2. Nominal suffixation Welsh nominal derivation is extremely rich using a wide range of suffixes. Zimmer (2000: 271−578) provides a full discussion, but here we can only concentrate on the most common patterns. One other feature to which attention will be drawn is the rich variety of complex derivation which occurs in Welsh with derivatives themselves based on derivatives.

4.2.1. Denominal nouns Two categories of derivatives are exemplified here, agent nouns and abstract nouns. The most common suffix for forming a g e n t n o u n s is -wr (pl. -wyr) (Russell 1989: 34− 36; 1996: 121), which immediately raises a problem because it is in origin the second element of a compound (< *u̯iro- ‘man’), and even within Welsh it can be replaced with -wraig ‘woman’, suggesting that it was still possible to analyse it as a compound. How-

2776

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

ever, -wr can be preceded by the pre-suffixal yod which would indicate its suffixal status. In short, it has been argued elsewhere (Russell 1996) that such patterns can be seen as occupying a place on a continuum between clear-cut compounds and derivatives and sharing features of both. Derivatives (or compounds) in -wr are usually based on nouns, e.g., aerwr ‘warrior’ (← aer ‘slaughter’), barnwr ‘judge’ (← barn ‘judgement’), etc. Occasionally, there are doublets, e.g., arweinwr ‘leader’ (← arwain ‘leading’ (verbal noun)) beside arweddwr (← arwedd- (verbal stem)) but the predominant pattern is based on verbal nouns. Such derivatives became more productive through the medieval and early modern period; for example, beside Middle Welsh cofiadur ‘recorder’ and cofiawdr ‘someone good at remembering’ (based on cof ‘memory’ or cofio ‘to remember’), we find coffáwr (15th c.), cofiwr (16th c.), cofiawdwr (1630), and coffadwr (1690) (Russell 1989: 34−35). A full-blown and indisputable agent-noun suffix, at least in the early period, was -iad; many of the early examples are based with a verbal sense, often verbal nouns, e.g., amddiffyniad ‘defender’ (← amddifyn ‘to defend’), Old Welsh centhliat ‘singer’ (← Old Welsh *centhl (cf. Middle Welsh cathl ‘singing’)). It became less productive in the early modern period, probably to avoid confusion with action-noun derivatives in -iad. This suffix could also be used as an instrumental suffix, e.g., egoriad ‘key; lit. opener’, etc. Again more common in Middle Welsh, but then gaining a huge boost from the large number of forms created in the 1588 Welsh Bible, was -ydd. Normally it was based on nouns (or verbal nouns), e.g., cynydd ‘huntsman’ (← ci, pl. cwn ‘dog’), awenydd ‘poet’ (← awen ‘poetic inspiration’), etc. A large number of the latter forms end in -edydd, e.g., dringhedydd ‘climber’, berwedydd ‘brewer’, etc.; this may be the outcome of a generalization of a verbal noun suffix -ed in a derivative pattern where the stem may well be a verbal noun, when there is no attested stem in -ed. Etymologically related to the -ydd suffix (< *-íi̯ o-) is the suffix -hai, in origin itself an agent noun based on the root sag- ‘to seek’, thus *-sagíi̯ o- lit. ‘seeker’ (Russell 1989: 38–39, 1996: 118−119; Joseph 1987). While the verb haeddu ‘to seek’ does exist, within Middle Welsh -hai is clearly a suffix rather than the second element of any kind of compound and still in the earliest examples retained a sense of ‘seeking’, e.g., Middle Welsh cardotai ‘beggar’ (cardod ‘charity, alms’), cynutai ‘gatherer of fuel’ (← cynnud ‘fuel’), etc. The suffix became unproductive in the early modern period with only occasional examples invented by lexicographers. Absorbed briefly into the range of agent-noun suffixes was also the Latin borrowing -or (earlier -awr) from Latin -ārius (Russell 1989: 39−40). It was at no time productive, though examples such as Middle Welsh carcharawr ‘prisoner’ (← carchar ‘prison’), cerdawr ‘musician’ (← cerd ‘poem’), llenor ‘writer’ (← llen ‘literature’), etc. are found (for other Latin borrowed suffixes, see Russell 1989: 40−42). Most nouns of activity or state in Welsh are based on adjectives, but we may note the suffix -aeth (< *-akta) can be added to nouns to create a b s t r a c t n o u n s , e.g., prydyddiaeth ‘poetry’ (← prydydd ‘poet’), meddyginiaeth ‘medicine’ (cf. meddyg ‘doctor’ < Latin medicus). It is also regularly used to create abstract nouns from derived nouns, especially agent nouns, e.g., cerddoriaeth ‘music’ (← cerddor ‘musician’), bradwriaeth ‘treachery’ (← bradwr ‘traitor’), ieithyddiaeth ‘linguistics’ (← ieithydd ‘linguist’), etc. Similarly, the suffix -as can form abstract nouns on nouns, e.g., teyrnas ‘kingdom, reign’ (← teyrn ‘ruler’), urddas ‘rank, status’ (← urdd ‘line, rank’ < Latin ordō), barddas ‘poetry’ (← bardd ‘poet’).

153. Welsh

2777

4.2.2. Deadjectival nouns The most common form of derived noun based on an adjective is the q u a l i t y n o u n. The most productive suffixes are -aeth (cf. also section 4.2.1), -edd and -rwydd by virtue of being added to almost any form of adjective, derived or otherwise. It is clear, however, that there are certain preferences though the distribution is far from having been worked out. For example, -aeth can be added to a range of adjectives: arbenigaeth ‘specialization’ (← arbennig ‘special’), mabolaeth ‘youth, filiation’ (← mabol ‘filial’), etc. The other wide-ranging suffix is -rwydd: caredigrwydd ‘kindness’ (← caredig ‘loving’), mawrfrydigrwydd ‘magnanimity, pride’ (← mawrfrydig ‘magnanimous’), beichiogrwydd ‘pregnancy’ (← beichiog ‘pregnant’), bydolrwydd ‘worldliness’ (← bydol ‘worldly’), awdurdodusrwydd ‘authoritarianism’ (← awdurdodus ‘authoritarian’ ← awdurdod ‘authority’ ← awdur ‘author’). On the other hand, the range of the suffix -edd seems more restricted; it is particularly common with derivatives in -ig and -ol but not with those in -og (Zimmer 2000: 555−556), e.g., atomigedd ‘atomism’ (← atomig ‘atomic’), priodoledd ‘attribute’ (← priodol ‘proper’).

4.3. Adjectival suffixation 4.3.1. Denominal adjectives By far the most productive adjective-forming suffixes in Welsh are -og and -ol (Russell 1990; Zimmer 2000: 469 for some statistics); insofar as we can gauge such things, the former, a native suffix, has been productive as far back as the evidence goes, but the latter (which seems to be derived from Latin -ālis) increased in productivity in the medieval and early modern period, perhaps helped by the continuing productivity of loanwords containing Latin -ālis in the later medieval period (Zimmer 1993 and Russell 1993, for discussion on how to measure their productivity). The variation in the chronology of their productivity may help to explain why -og is less productive as a formant with derived bases, while -ol is massively productive in that area of the lexicon, e.g., cymdeithasol ‘social’ (← cymdeithas ‘society’), cenedlaethol ‘national’ (← cenedlaeth ‘generation’ ← cenedl ‘people, race’), swyddogaethol ‘functional’ (← swyddogaeth ‘function’), pabyddol ‘papist, adj.’ (← pabydd ‘papist, n.’ ← pab ‘Pope’), etc. Exact pairs of derivatives are not common, but the semantic distinction between derivatives formed with them seems to be that, while -og has an approximate sense of ‘having X, with X’ (when X is the base of the derivative), -ol has a sense of ‘belonging to X, relating to X, X-like, etc.’ (Russell 1990: 125−131); for example, coedog ‘wooded; lit. having a forest/wood’ vs. coedol ‘silvan, wild; lit. forest-like, pertaining to coed’.

4.3.2. Deadjectival adjectives Suffixes used to derive adjectives can modify the sense of the adjective in some way but this is not always the case. For example, the moderately productive suffix -aidd is used in the modern phases of the language to mark loanwords as adjectives, e.g., Awstra-

2778

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

laidd ‘Australian’, politicaidd ‘political’, realaidd ‘realist’, etc. (Zimmer 2000: 478−484; cf. also Russell 1993: 152), but at earlier stages it is sometimes possible to detect some additional sense, e.g., hen ‘old’ → henaidd ‘oldish’, marw ‘dead’ → marwaidd ‘fatal’, etc. (on this suffix generally, Zimmer 2000: 467−484).

4.4. Verbal suffixation The most common suffix for deriving verbs from nouns and adjectives is -ha- (from a disyllabic verbal noun -háu), e.g., coetáu ‘to collect wood’ (← coed ‘wood’), pyscottáu ‘to go fishing’ (← pysgod ‘fish’), etc. This is the verbal form related to the agent-noun formation in -hai discussed in section 4.2.1. It has its origin in a compound verbal form with a second element in *sag- ‘to seek’ (cf. also its Old Irish reflex in the -(a)igidir verbs where -(a)ig- contains the same verbal element), and the examples just given reflect that origin. Joseph (1987) has shown that the original locus of the formation was noun X + -sag- ‘seeking X’, but as the semantics of the original construction bleached, it gradually developed into an all-purpose secondary verb marker; at that stage it then became possible to suffix it to adjectives as well, e.g., bywháu ‘to enliven’ (← byw ‘living’), etc.

5. Conversion Conversion (or zero-derivation) is very rare in Welsh and therefore this brief discussion is not sub-divided into different types. Usually it is necessary, for example, if an adjective is converted to a noun to use a pronoun like un ‘one’, rhai ‘some’, e.g., yr un coch ‘the red one’. However, in the earlier language there were some well-established instances, such as Old Welsh degion, Middle Welsh deon ‘nobles’, a form based on the plural of the adjective da ‘good’, and also daoed ‘goods, property’ (though this may be a calque on Latin bona). The crucial thing here is that the plural has become lexicalized; the singular da cannot be used by itself to refer to a noble, which would more normally be gwrda lit. ‘good-man’. Another possible example is caeth ‘captive, slave’; again this can be either adjectival or nominal in Welsh, but the difficulty here is that it is a borrowing from Latin captus; as such, it is not clear whether the change of word class took place in Welsh or in Latin. If the latter, it is arguable that the word was borrowed twice from Latin, once as an adjective and again as a noun. A notable feature of such forms in Middle Welsh is that they are much more likely to be found as nominalized plural adjectives than singulars; it is notable because outside a small group of core adjectives, plural adjectives are relatively rare. It is possible then that a plural adjective might be substantivized precisely because the plural marker is in effect marking it as substantivized. If so, it might be argued that these are not cases of conversion since they carry a marker of their change of class. One interesting case of adverbial conversion involves the adverb yn ôl ‘after; lit. in the track of’, from which was created in early modern Welsh a lexicalized verb nôl ‘to fetch’, probably via constructions such as aeth hi yn ol … ‘she went after …’ (Willis 2007).

153. Welsh

2779

6. Reduplication There are a number of forms in Welsh, often called iterative compounds, where the same element is repeated for intensification, e.g., lledled ‘far and wide, through’ (lled ‘wide’), mwyfwy ‘more and more’ (mwy ‘more’), etc. Related to these are what seem to be playful forms where the only alternation is in the vowel, e.g., chwitchwat ‘fickle (person)’, pilipala ‘butterfly’ (Zimmer 2000: 8−11).

7. Blending Such forms are vanishingly rare in Welsh. The most recent Welsh dictionary, Geiriadur yr Academi (Griffiths and Jones 1995), offers very few examples; one possible instance is brecinio ‘brunch’ (brecwast ‘breakfast’ + cinio ‘lunch’) but that is transparently a calque on English brunch. There are cases which look like blends, but are probably to be analysed simply as compounds which have undergone the usual kind of sound changes which occur in compounds; for example, eirlaw ‘sleet’ (eira/eiry ‘snow’ + glaw ‘rain’) might be argued to be a blend, but in fact in all compounds the final vowel of eira/eiry is lost and the loss of initial g- is due to the standard lenition of consonants at the beginning of the second element of a compound. A different type of case is gliniadur ‘lap-top’. It cannot, on semantic grounds, be a construction of glin ‘knee’ + -iadur (suffix marking tools and machines, etc.), but must have been influenced by cyfrifiadur ‘computer’ (cyfrif ‘counting’ + ‘tool’-suffix); semantically, gliniadur is not a tool related to knees in the same way that geiriadur ‘dictionary’ is a tool for words or cyfrifiadur is a tool for reckoning and computing. Arguably, therefore, it could be analysed as a blend of glin + cyfrifiadur. But the very fact that we are really having to scrape around for examples is itself indicative of the very marginal nature of such formations in Welsh.

8. Clipping In its technical sense, as in pub from public-house, etc., clipping is very rare in Welsh. In most cases, the reduction is explicable in phonological terms as the loss of the atonic syllable and is closer therefore to apheresis, e.g., Gog ‘a Northwalian’ (Gogledd ‘North Wales’) a plural of which can be Gogs, using the borrowed English -s plural, Dolig (Nadolig) ‘Christmas’, Steddfod (Eisteddfod), dwetha (diwetha) ‘last’, eiste, ishte (eistedd) ‘sid’, ma, na (yma, yna) ‘here, there’, da (gyda) ‘with’, fo (efo) ‘with’. A more substantial reduction is seen in sgwennu (ysgrifennu) ‘to write’. An interesting recent sub-category is the addition of -s to a shortened form, e.g., Gogs (Gogledd) ‘north (of Wales)’, not in the sense of a plural, e.g., mynd i’r Gogs ‘to go to North Wales’, and likewise Nads (Nadolig) ‘Christmas’. I am grateful to my student, Silva Nurmio, for chasing down these examples on Facebook, that most useful of sources for contemporary language.

2780

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

9. Conclusion The above discussion has of necessity only scratched the surface. One thing that emerges is that almost all the scholarship so far has tended to have a historical perspective; this is partly because the main dictionary of Welsh, Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru (Thomas, Bevan and Donovan 1950−2000), is based on historical principles. Little or no work has taken a synchronic standpoint, and that is where the new work needs to be done.

10. References Chapman, Carol 1995 Perceptual salience and affix order: Noun plurals as input to word-formation. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 175−184. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Davies, Caryl 2000 Adfeilion Babel. Agweddau ar syniadaeth ieithyddol y ddeunawfed ganrif. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Ellis, Robert (Cynddelw) (ed.) 1874 Geiriadur y Bardd. Caernarfon: Humphreys. Evans, H. Meurig 1981 Y Geiriadur Cymraeg Cyfoes. The Dictionary of Modern Welsh. Llandybïe: Hughes. Griffiths, Bruce and Dafydd Glyn Jones 1995 The Welsh Academy English-Welsh Dictionary. Geiriadur yr Academi. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Joseph, Lionel S. 1987 The origin of the Celtic denominative formation in *sag-. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.), Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill, 1929−1985. Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference, Cornell University, June 6−9, 1985, 113−59. Berlin: de Gruyter. King, Gareth 1993 Modern Welsh. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Lewis, Henry and Holger Pedersen 1961 A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pedersen, Holger 1909–13 Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. 2 Vol. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Russell, Paul 1988 Review of Zimmer 1987. Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 15: 108−109. Russell, Paul 1989 Agent suffixes in Welsh: Native and non-native. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 36: 30−42. Russell, Paul 1990 Celtic Word Formation. The Velar Suffixes. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Russell, Paul 1993 Modern Welsh -og and productivity in derivational patterns. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 2: 151−156. Russell, Paul 1995 Introduction to the Celtic Languages. London: Longman.

153. Welsh

2781

Russell, Paul 1996 ‘Verdunkelte Komposita’ in Celtic. Studia Celtica 30: 113−125. Stephens, Roy 1978 Yr Odliadur. Llandysul: Gwasg Gomer. Thomas, Peter Wynn 1992 In search of Middle Welsh dialects. In: Cyril J. Byrne, Margaret Harry and Pádraig Ó Siadhail (eds.), Celtic Languages and Celtic Peoples. Proceedings of the Second North American Congress of Celtic Studies, 1989, 287−303. Halifax, Nova Scotia: D’Arcy Magee Chair of Irish Studies, St Mary’s University. Thomas, Peter Wynn 1993 Middle Welsh dialects: Problems and perspectives. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 40: 17−50. Thomas, Peter Wynn 1996 Gramadeg y Gymraeg. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Thomas, Richard J., Gareth A. Bevan and Patrick J. Donovan (eds.) 1950−2002 Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Thorne, David A. 1993 A Comprehensive Welsh Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Watkins, T. Arwyn 1961 Ieithyddiaeth. Agweddau ar Astudio Iaith. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Williams, Stephen J. 1980 A Welsh Grammar. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Willis, David 2005 Lexical diffusion in Middle Welsh: The distribution of /j/ in the law texts. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 9: 105−133. Willis, David 2007 Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization. Linguistics 45: 271−310. Zimmer, Stefan 1987 Geiriadur Gwrthdroadol Cymraeg Diweddar. A Reverse Dictionary of Modern Welsh. Hamburg: Buske. Zimmer, Stefan 1990 Dating the loanwords: The Latin suffixes in Welsh. In: Alfred Bammesberger and Alfred Wollmann (eds.), Britain 400–600. Language and History, 263−282. Heidelberg: Winter. Zimmer, Stefan 1992 On the productivity of the Welsh suffix -og. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 1: 139−144. Zimmer, Stefan 2000 Studies in Welsh Word-Formation. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Paul Russell, Cambridge (UK)

2782

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

154. Irish 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

Abstract The three most productive word-formation mechanisms in Irish (called Gaeilge in standard Irish) are a) prefixation, b) composition (with a small set of deadjectival and denominal premodifiers) and c) suffixation. Prefixation and composition are common only with nouns and adjectives as bases. The highly productive diminutive suffix -ín does not change the class of (mostly noun) bases. The category of the abstract comparative contains an intersection of the suffixes of both the inflectional comparative adjective and the derivational abstract noun. Many lexicalised phrases are important lexical items but are not considered as word-formation unless they show morphological signs of univerbation. Conversion is restricted, and blending and clipping are rare.

1. Introduction Irish is the variety of Celtic spoken in Ireland. It is closely related to Scottish Gaelic. Both constitute the main members of the Goidelic subgroup which is the western sister of Brythonic (Welsh, Breton) within the Celtic language family. Accounts of Irish wordformation are found mostly in descriptive monographs. For Irish in general: Ó hAnluain (1999 [1960]: 136−137, 243−245, 266−267, 303−320). For particular dialects: County Kerry in Munster, Ó Sé (2000: 312−316, 385−386, 466−484); County Galway in Connacht, de Bhaldraithe (1953a: 130−132, 239−256) and Ó Curnáin (2007: 124−129, 564− 569, 582−656, 685−690, 892−898, 1075−1103, 1226, 1235−1249, 1254−1256, 1721− 1724, 1803, 1875−1876, 2002−2013). These references include verbal-noun derivation. Indications of stress and phonetics in this article are from Ó Curnáin (2007) unless otherwise stated. Discussions of certain aspects of word-formation are: Armstrong (1981: 640−641, 653−706) and McManus (1994: 389−392) concerning the at times profligate prefixing and compounding in Classical Early Modern syllabic verse; de Bhaldraithe (1990) on diminutives (cf. de Bhaldraithe 1953b, a dialect list containing a thousand terms for types of people); County Waterford in Munster, Breatnach (1947: 79−82) regarding compound stress, County Cork in Munster, Ó Cuív (1944: 67−68) regarding

154. Irish

2783

compound stress, Ó hÚrdail (1995) on the preference for agentive -éir in South-West Co. Cork; Ní Dhomhnaill (1988) contains a list of alliterative doublets. Doyle (1992) is the only book-length analysis of Irish word-formation I know of, its subject is noun derivation (26−134) − abstract and activity nouns, agentives and diminutives − but it requires revision and improvement, in view, for example, of the data available in the valuable reverse dictionary of Doyle and Gussmann (1996). Full traditional native speaker competence in Irish is only found among dialect speakers. These speakers have not acquired standard Irish in initial early language acquisition. This survey article, written by a non-native speaker to whom many of the words cited here are known only from dictionaries, will concentrate on the commonest productive use in dialects. The vitality-status of Irish as a threatened language is “semi-moribund” (Ó Curnáin 2012: 286) since c. 1990 because it is generally being incompletely acquired by native speakers born after c. 1990 who, through subtractive bilingualism, acquire greater proficiency in their second language, English (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007: 303− 320; Ó Giollagáin and Mac Donncha 2008: 114−117; Péterváry et al. 2014). Productivity of word-formation refers in this article to the knowledge of traditional speakers, the most competent of whom were generally born before 1940. Post-traditional speech can be situated on a cline of reduction regarding phonology, morphology, lexicon and wordformation; for instance, the absence of the traditionally obligatory verbalising suffix -áil with current borrowings (Lenoach 2012; Ó Curnáin 2012). Thus, although this description is cast in the present tense, much is currently being lost and can, or soon will be, generally by c. 2050, more accurately described in the past tense. From the point of view of word-formation in standardised Irish, given state support of the neological enterprise (applied primarily in official documentation and education), Irish is one of, if not the best provided-for (semi-)moribund language in the world, exemplified in many praiseworthy lexicographical endeavours, for instance, Uí Bhraonáin and Nic Pháidín (2004) and the ongoing terminological project available on the website www.focal.ie (Nic Pháidín 2008: 105) and English-Irish dictionary at www.focloir.ie as well as the valuable corpus at corpas.focloir.ie. Irish is dying, so to speak, with its standardised terminological boots on, enabling some of its speakers and writers to deal with, deny, ignore or avoid the process of its death with greater sophistication than most speakers of dying languages (cf. Fishman 1991: 143).

2. General overview David Greene (1966: 24−25, 30−31) provides an overview of many features of Irish relevant to word-formation: [...] Irish resembles French more than English in that words cannot, in general, be transferred from one category to another; [...]. The word has a structure which is common enough in other European languages; it can have one syllable (bean), two (bata), or three (airgead ‘money’, where a vowel is pronounced, but not written, between the middle consonants). Root words have seldom more than two syllables; when there are three or more syllables it usually means that we have a complex of some kind − an inflected form (busanna ‘buses’, chuireadar ‘they put’), a derivative (sagart-óireacht ‘practising as a priest’, from sagart ‘priest’), or a compound (srac-fhéachaint ‘a glance’). This is very much the situation with

2784

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic the native (Germanic) vocabulary of English too; a language like Norwegian, which has fewer loanwords than English, would be even closer to Irish. [...] Irish differs from English and German, though it agrees with French, in avoiding prepositional prefixes (input, output, etc.) and compound nouns (sparking-plug); in the first case the natural thing is to say putting in, putting out, and in the second to use a noun followed by another in the genitive case, as in inneall buailte ‘threshing machine’, literally ‘machine of threshing’, like French machine à coudre ‘sewing machine’. [...] Irish may be said to be a noun-centred language, [...]

Notes: sracfhéachaint ← srac- ‘cursory’ + féachaint ‘look(ing)’ (see section 3); in contemporary French compounding is used quite freely, see article 38 on noun-noun compounds in French. From the evidence of monographs, the (West) Galway dialect (de Bhaldraithe 1953a; Ó Curnáin 2007), evinces the highest degree of productive prefixing and composition; whereas the Donegal dialect, with its possibly related high degree of verbal analyticity, may well evince the least amount of productive word-formation apparatus. Although recent (19th and 20th centuries) borrowing from English has been substantial, there has been no clear recent vernacular borrowing of English derivational affixes.

2.1. Literary and dialect (or vernacular) use In comparison to dialect use, literary or standard Irish has a far greater range in productive use of most methods of word-formation, particularly of prefixation and composition. For well over a century, since the beginning of language revitalisation, literary Irish has undergone a process of (re)sophistication beyond dialectal resources, which has included much word coinage and major corpus planning initiatives, often, and increasingly so, by non-native speakers, based to a degree on folk literary use but also on historical linguistic resources of Irish as well as borrowing European and particularly neoclassical formations modeled on and responding to predominantly English word-formation. Modern lexical neologisms are often straight transliterations of neoclassical formations, including combining forms: speictreascóp ‘spectroscope’. They frequently combine neoclassical with Irish constituents or affixes and are thus hybrid in character: speictreascópach (adjectival suffix -ach) ‘spectroscopic’; fonítrít (← native fo- ‘under, lower’ + borrowed nítrít ‘nitrite’) ‘hyponitrite’; feithid ‘insect’ → fully native feithideolaíocht ‘entomology’ (‘-ology’ corresponding to the neologism eolaíocht ‘science’ ← eolaí ‘guide’, eol and eolas ‘knowledge’), but hybrid feithidicíd ‘insecticide’ alongside synonymous fully native feithidnimh (← nimh ‘poison’). Cf. de Bhaldraithe (1959: v). As in the example of fonítrít ‘hyponitrite’ an important modern neologistic feature is premodification with words, but also with prefixes and combining forms that were historically productive in word-formation but that are not generally productive in the vernacular. As well as numerical premodifiers, especially noteworthy are premodifiers of (relative) orientation, status and time, many of which have native prepositional equivalents and reflect important neoclassical or English usage: ais- ‘re-, back’, ban- ‘female’, dé‘bi-, di-’, eas- ~ eis- ‘ex-, out’, fear- ‘male’, fo- ‘under’, for- ‘over, super-’, frith‘against’, iar- ‘post-’, idir- ‘inter-’, i(o)m- ‘about, peri-, mutual’, il- ‘multi-, poly-’, i(o)n‘in-’, íos- ‘least, down’, neas- ‘near’, oll- ‘great, super-’, príomh- ‘prime’, ré- ‘even (number)’, réamh- ‘pre-’, sain- ‘special’, sár- ‘super-, per-’, seach- ‘by-’, tob- ‘quick’,

154. Irish

2785

tras- ‘cross-, trans-’, uas- ‘top, up’, ur- ‘formal’. An important concept in modernity is realised with uath- ‘auto-’ (< literary uatha ‘singular’) and féin- ‘self-, auto-’, the latter, féin ‘self’, a rare instance of a constituent which was impermissible in combination in the earlier language, féin- ‘self-, auto-’ thus illustrating, by the rarity of ahistorical formation, the relative ease of modernising composition and prefixation from an historical point of view. Innovative second constituents as combining forms are less numerous: -eolaíocht ‘-ology’ (< eolaíocht ‘science’); -lathas ‘-cracy’ (< flaitheas ‘rule’ (via fhlaitheas with f- lenited and thus silent; see section 2.2) based on flaith ‘ruler’) as in daonlathas ‘democracy’ (literary daon ‘human being’); -lann (< lann ‘site’) as in leabharlann ‘library’ (leabhar ‘book’), bialann ‘restaurant’ (bia ‘food’) and with -lann in the base: leabhar+lann+aí ‘librarian’, íoc+lann+óir ‘(medical) dispenser; lit. healing+site+er’; collective -ra as in daonra ‘population’ (daon ‘human being’). These illustrations also instantiate the modern corpus-planned combining form daon-: daon+eolas ‘social studies; lit. human+knowledge’, daon+áireamh ‘census of population; lit. human+counting’, daon+chara ‘philanthropist; lit. human+friend’, daon+chairdeas ‘philanthropy; lit. human+friendship’. With regard to derivation, standard usage unhistorically differentiates agentive -í (native) and -óir (old borrowing from Latin) based on the useful contrast between English -ee (adapted from Anglo-Norman) and -er, thus fostaí, fostóir (← fostaigh ‘to employ’) correspond to employee, employer (whereas vernacular siúlaí and siúlóir ‘walker, wanderer’ ← siúl ‘walk’, siúil ‘to walk’, for instance, are synonymous); adjectival -ach can contrast with -úil similar to English -ic vs. -ous as in nítreach vs. nítriúil as English neoclassical nitric vs. nitrous; and processual -ú+chán (containing the -ú verbal-noun suffix of verbal 2 conjugation) corresponds to English -ification and -isation as in nítriúchán ‘(process or result of) nitrification’ (← nítriú ‘(action of) nitrification’); and abstract -achas can contrast with abstract -acht, etc., as English -ism can contrast with -ity, etc. Standard verbalisation adopts the older verbal suffix -igh in contrast to dialectal -áil: cnámh ‘bone’ → cnámhaigh ‘to ossify’ vs. cnámháil ‘to bone (fish)’ (Uí Bheirn 1989 s. v.). Compounding is more preferred in standard formation than in vernacular (see section 2): ban+dochtúir ‘woman doctor’ for vernacular phrasal use dochtúir mná ‘woman doctor; lit. doctor (of) woman’ (appositional genitive); leathan+bhanda ‘broadband’ for vernacular formation banda leathan ‘broadband; lit. band broad’. An instance from Hussey (1999: 206) can illustrate scientific technical discourse built on native and borrowed word-formation resources of prefixing and composition: (1)

An raon ultraivialait, an raon infheicthe, agus an raon infridhearg The range ultra+violet, the range capable-of+seen, and the range infra+red formhéadaithe; agus fúthu sin thíos, an speictream leictreamaighnéadach de over+enlarged; and under-3PL that below, the spectrum electro+magnetic of réir tonnfhad. accordance wave+lengths-GENPL ‘The ultraviolet range, the visible range, and the infrared range magnified; and beneath them, the electromagnetic spectrum by wavelengths.’

This example contains the semantic specialisation of raon ‘path, track, range’, extension of tonn ‘(water) wave’ to light or electromagnetic waves and six or seven neologisms:

2786

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

a) neoclassical: ultrai+vialait, speictream; b) hybrid: infri+dhearg, leictrea+maighnéadach (for leictrea+mhaighnéad-ach); c) native: in+fheicthe (also non-terminological dialectal use; corresponding to older so+fheicse(ana(ch)), etc., ‘visible’), for+mhéadaithe, tonn+fhad.

2.2. Phonology and initial mutations Phonological changes occur mainly at juncture between elements and typically involve sandhi phenomena also found between words at phrase level, for instance, consonantal quality (palatal − diacritic ˊ − or non-palatal): an- /an/ ‘very’ and deas /dˊas/ ‘nice’ → an-deas /'aɴˊ'dˊas/ ‘very nice’ with palatalised d causing palatalisation of preceding n (as happens to aon /eːn/ ‘any’ in aon deise /'eːɴˊ 'dˊeʃǝ/ ‘any niceness’), and similarly an-fhear /'aɴˊ'ar/ ‘great man’ with lenited palatalised f causing palatalisation of preceding n (as occurs in aon fhear /'eːɴˊ 'ar/ ‘any man’). A distinctive feature in Munster is the lexicalisation of an original epenthetic vowel between a sonorant and a following consonant. Thus premodifiers such as an- ‘very’, bun- ‘base’, corr- ‘odd’, fionn- ‘white, light’, feill- ‘foul, exceedingly’, gearr- ‘short’, sean- ‘old’ have by-forms ana-, buna-, corra-, feille-, fionna-, gearra-, seana-. Thus southern seana+bhean ‘old woman’ doubly marks juncture, with the linking vowel and lenition, for northern sean+bhean. Otherwise premodifying nouns and adjectives typically have the same form as the nominative base. Initial mutations are pervasive in the Celtic languages. The main initial mutations in Irish are lenition (< spirantisation) and eclipsis (< prenasalisation), which involve a reduction in the degree of consonantal occlusion and an increase in sonority respectively. In Irish word-formation, elements, be they words or prefixes, placed before a base regularly cause lenition of the initial consonant or consonants of the base. Lenition, when indicated in the orthography, is shown by placing h after the effected consonant. Thus mórthír /'moːrhiːrˊ/ ‘mainland’ (← mór /moːr/ ‘big’ + tír /tˊiːrˊ/ ‘country’) with t /tˊ/ lenited to th /h/, an-cham /'an'xɑːm/ ‘very crooked’ (← an- ‘very’ + cam ‘crooked’) with c /k/ lenited to ch /x/, and drochshlí /'drox'hlˊiː/ ‘bad way’ (← droch- /drox/ ‘bad’ + slí /ʃʟˊiː/ ‘way’) with sl → shl where both s and l undergo phonological lenition primarily in spirantisation and change of place of articulation respectively: /ʃʟˊ/ > /hlˊ/. Absence or blocking of lenition is common in homorganic clusters, particularly coronals: ceanndána /'kˊɑːndɑːnǝ/ ‘headstrong’ (← ceann ‘head’ + dána ‘bold’) with retention of plosive dental d following homorganic nn. Eclipsis of the initial of the base is mostly limited to dialectal seacht- ‘sevenfold, very’ (< independent numeral seacht ‘seven’ which eclipses; Ó Curnáin 2007: 609): seachtmbearrtha /'ʃaxt'mˊɑːrhǝ/ ‘shaven more than enough’ (← seacht ‘seven’ + bearrtha /'bˊɑːrhǝ/ ‘shaven’) in contrast to standard lenition: seachtbhliantúil ‘septennial’ (← seacht ‘seven’ + bliantúil ‘yearly’). Diachronic eclipsis is evidenced: 'iargúil ‘remote place’ (← iar- ‘after, remote’ + cúil ‘corner’ with c > g through eclipsis) and 'éadrom ‘light’ (← é- ‘not’ + trom ‘heavy’). The spelling leictrea+maighnéadach without lenition, example (1), is current but not standard. Standard lenition, leictrea+mhaighnéad (de Bhaldraithe 1959 s. v. electro-magnet), follows the rule whereby native elements are both targets and triggers of lenition, i.e. no lenition of premodified element in type a. (neoclassical+neoclassical) but lenition

154. Irish

2787

of premodified element in b. (neoclassical+native) and lenition of premodified element in c. (native+neoclassical) (An Caighdeán Oifigiúil 1958: 122). The native premodified constituent here is maighnéad ‘magnet’, an old borrowing from Latin, now revived in place of later-surviving maighnéis ‘magnet’. A further instance is a. cili+méadar ‘kilometre’ without lenition because of the type (neoclassical+neoclassical) but c. trí+mhéadar ‘trimeter’ and trasna+mhéadar ‘interferometer’ with lenition because of the type (native+neoclassical) (An Coiste Téarmaíochta 2010: § 7.6) and b.+c. in radathrasna+mhéadar ‘radio interferometer’ with two instances of lenition because (neoclassical+native+neoclassical). This rule, effecting lenition of the native but not neoclassical element when premodified by a neoclassical constituent, can be rather demanding, requiring knowledge of etymology, as is evidenced by the presentation in McKennaLawlor and Ó Muirí (2010: 30) where the variable application of lenition is insufficiently described in terms of the preposed element only.

2.3. Stress Default stress in Irish is on the initial syllable of words. In words containing more than one constituent, primary stress is typically placed on the initial constituent (and, most regularly in Connacht, secondary stress on the second constituent) in the structure ˈelement1-element2, typically a) ˈqualifier-head (or, regularly in Connacht, ˈqualifier-ˌhead − except North County Mayo, following Mhac an Fhailigh (1968: 61−63)) but double primary stress b) ˈqualifier-ˈhead is also common and a few prefixes do not take stress: c) qualifier-ˈhead. The tendency is for the more lexicalised complex items to take one single primary stress placed initially. The pattern of double primary stress ˈqualifierˈhead is common with intensifiers; thus contrasts occur such as ˈdubh-ˌhead ‘black ...’ with lexical meaning but ˈdubh-ˈhead ‘utter / very ...’ with figurative intensifier meaning. A similar distinction occurs in numeral adjectives, which, unlike canonical adjectives, are placed before the noun, but which also can occur initially in composition (an important complicating distinction − not clearly drawn in Ó Siadhail 1989: 118). Thus, in ˈaon(ˌ)teach ‘cohabiting; lit. in one-house’ but typically ˈaon ˈteach aˈˈmháin ‘one (single) house’ or ˈaon ˈteach ‘any house’. And ˈan-ˈmhéid ~ ˈan-ˌmhéid ‘great size’ can generally contrast with ˈanmhéid ‘hugeness’ in Connacht (Ó Curnáin 2007: 587−588). In Ulster, in line with the overall Ulster tendency toward vowel reduction in weakly stressed position, distinctive secondary stress seems absent in words; so that, corresponding to Connacht stress type ˈqualifier-ˌhead, Ulster typically has one distinctive stress ˈqualifier-head. Phonetic realisation ˈqualifier-ˌhead when found in Ulster corresponds to unreduced vowel quality in the head (thus resembling the rule in simple words where non-initial clear vowels take secondary − or tertiary − stress), which, when the vowel of the head is reduced, becomes ˈqualifier-head (Quiggin 1906: 153−154; Ó Searcaigh 1923: 153; Ulster ˈqualifier-ˈhead ~ ˈqualifier-ˌhead reported in Sommerfelt 1922: 120− 124, 1965: 303). Emphasising through stress and de-emphasising through decreasing prosodic salience is, however, common: typical Connacht ro-ˈmhór ‘too big’ (since rois one of the typically unstressed prefixes) can become, with overall emphasis, ˈro-ˈmhór or, with emphasis of ‘too’, ˈro-ˌmhór or even ˈro-mhór. Neologisms can be influenced by English stress of corresponding words: Connacht and Ulster speakers adopt idirˈnáisiúnta ‘international’ primarily due to English interˈnational.

2788

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

In Munster there is a general tendency to shift stress to phonologically heavy syllables in all words, including, although far from exceptionlessly, complex words formed through prefixation, composition or suffixation. Thus, as an example of prefixation, míshásta ‘displeased’ (← prefix mí- ‘un-’ + sásta ‘satisfied’): a) Ulster ˈmíˈshásta ~ ˈmíshásta and b) Connacht ˈmíˌshásta but c) Munster míˈshásta with primary stress placement on a syllable containing a long vowel. Munster míˈshásta presumably can be transcribed as ˌmíˈshásta but Munster monographs do not find this nescessary which can lead to some analytic ambiguities. Between two works of Ó Cuív (1947 and 1944) for the same Co. Cork dialect, stress pattern ˈ_ˈ_ often equates with ˈ_ˌ_, and pattern _ˈ_ with ˌ_ˈ_, e.g., comhfhaid ‘equal length’ (← prefix comh- ‘co-, equal’ + faid ‘length’) transcribed as /ˈkoːˈɑdˊ/ in Ó Cuív (1947: 65) would presumably be */ˈkoːˌɑdˊ/ following Ó Cuív’s analysis (1944: 68 § 244), but comhchliamhain ‘brother-in-law’ /koːxˈlˊiǝn´/ (← comh- ‘co-’ + cliamhain ‘in-law’) in Ó Cuív (1947: 65) would be */ˌkoːxˈlˊiǝn´/ following Ó Cuív (1944: 68 § 246). But there are complications: ˈbiorˈshrónach ‘sharpnosed’ (← bior ‘point’ + srón+ach ‘nose+d’) in Ó Cuív (1947: 30) would be *ˌbiorˈshrónach according to Ó Cuív’s analysis (1944: 68 § 246) and thus one would have expected rather *biorˈshrónach in the system of Ó Cuív (1947) and, contrariwise, binnbhaˈrraíocht ‘command’ (← binn ‘portion’ + barraíocht ‘excess, mastry’; Ó Cuív 1947: 30 s. v. binn-bhoraíocht) would be *ˈbinnbhaˈrraíocht according to Ó Cuív’s rule (1944: 68 § 248), and exceptional barrˈfhalla ‘upper part of internal wall’ (← barr ‘top’ + falla ‘wall’; Ó Cuív 1947: 25) is clearly counter to Ó Cuív’s rule (1944: 68 § 244) and similar ambiguities occur with the prefix an- (Ó Cuív 1947: 10−12). Stress shift to heavy syllable is particularly common at the initial syllable of the second element, thus, lexicalised compound leath+ch(o)róin ‘half-crown (coin)’ (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: 96): (2)

a. 'leathch(o)róin, Ulster and Connacht; b. ˈleathˈchróin ~ 'leathˌchróin, North Munster (dialectally intermediate); c. leathˈchróin, general Munster (stressed long vowel).

And, as an example of derivation, siopadóir ‘shopkeeper’ (← ˈsiopa ‘shop’ + agentive -adóir): Connacht and Ulster ˈsiopadóir but Munster siopa'dóir. Distinctions can be made in Munster, when combining sean(a)- ‘old’, for example, with tig (corresponding to standard teach) ‘house’, between ˈseanathig ‘(the) ˈold-house’ (lexicalised unit) and seanaˈthig ‘(an) old ˈhouse’ (productive combination) similar to English ˈblackˌbird vs. ˌblack ˈbird respectively (Breatnach 1947: 79−82; cf. Ó Curnáin 2007: 610). Furthermore, with the secondary meaning ‘bad’, sean(a)- eschews primary stress: seanaˈchos ‘bad leg/foot’ (Ó Sé 2000: 468). There are interesting instances of conditioning of stress placement by syllable count; for fo- ‘occasional’: ˈfo-polysyllable but fo-ˈmonosyllable (Ó Sé 2000: 472; implying fo-ˈbhád ‘odd boat’, cf. various instances of ˈfo-ˈbhád and ˈfo-bhád in Wagner 1958–69 Vol. 2: question 1155); an opposite tendency of a second element with high syllable count attracting stress: element1ˈtrisyllable (containing short syllables) (Breatnach 1947: 80). One can also mention the interesting condition of verbal adjectives attracting stress in the structure nounˈverbal-adjective: cosˈnochtaithe (also cosˈnochtaí East Connacht) ‘barefooted; lit. foot+bared’, coisˈligthithe ‘free; lit. foot+released’ (Ó Sé 2000: 469; Wagner 1958-69 Vol. 1: 135; Breatnach 1961: 106). Set nominal phrases generally show little or no phonological indication of lexicalisation or entrenchment, with typical phrasal stress (ˈnoun + ˈˈdependent noun (genitive))

154. Irish

2789

or (noun + ˈdependent noun (genitive)). But in Ulster (see section 5.1 and section 10 on word-creation), where vowel reduction is common in unstressed syllables and in the stressed syllable of polysyllabic words, vowel-reduction can indicate singular stress on the phrase as a unit: carn-ˈaoiligh ‘dunghill; lit. heap (of) manure’ (with short a in destressed carn) in contrast to expected cárn ˈaoiligh as found in Connacht and Munster; ˈdeireadh-oiche (shortened destressed -oí-) < deireadh ˈoíche ‘late at night; lit. end (of) night’; ˈdó-dheag < dó ˈdhéag ‘twelve; lit. two teen’; similarly in compounds: ˈlineadach ‘linen-cloth’ (í shortened due to polysyllabic context, éa shortened due to lack of stress) < lín-éadach (Wagner 1959: 92−93); also ˈcorr-ˈuair ~ ˈcorr-uair ‘odd time’ → ˈcorrbha(i)r in Co. Donegal (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 3: question 1156). Such lexicalised reduction through stress distinctions are important in Scottish Gaelic, contiguous dialectally with Ulster. At the opposite end of the dialectal prosodic continuum, in Munster, univerbation, for instance, of tine ˈaoil ‘lime-kiln; lit. fire of lime’ > tiˈníl (plural tiˈníleacha) can be related to the placement of stress on long vowels in non-initial position, including in monomorphemic words.

2.4. Prefixes Prefixes are bound morphemes which function to semantically modify a base constituent. Prefixes which are clearly productive in (certain) dialects can be summarily classified based on semantic functions: Positive: Negative: Degree, intensive: Time, number:

dea- ~ ˈdeá-ˈ ‘good, well’, in-ˈ ‘capable of, fit to, possible to’, ˈso-ˌ ‘easy to, possible to, good’, ˈsár-ˈ ‘excellent’; ˈdí-ˌ ‘de-, in-, un-’, ˈdo-ˌ ‘difficult to, impossible to, un-, in-, ill-’, ˈdroch-ˈ ‘bad’, 'mí-ˌ ‘ill-, un-’, ˈneamh-ˌ ‘in-, un-’; ˈan-ˈ ‘very’, ˈcomh-ˈ ‘equal’, fia- ‘large’, fri- ~ ˈfiod-ˌ ‘slight’, ˈleas-ˌ ‘step-, by-’, 'rí-ˈ ‘very’, ró- ~ ro-ˈ ‘too’; cf. positive sár-; ˈath-ˌ ‘again, re-’, ˈfo- ~ fo-ˈ ‘occasional’ (Ó Sé 2000: 472).

General Munster fo- ‘odd’ (prefix < preposition) corresponds to Connacht and Ulster corr- ‘odd’ (based on adjective corr ‘odd’); one finds both in interstitial Co. Clare, and corr- > corra- in Co. Clare and South-East Co. Galway (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 2 and 3: question 1155; O’Rahilly 1972: 242).

3. Composition There was diachronically much compositional word-formation, particularly of nouns and adjectives. Productive composition in the dialects is limited to a small set of nominal premodifiers and a slightly larger set of adjectival premodifiers as well as a marginal deverbal premodifier. Examples of premodifiers are:

2790

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

Nominal:

barr- ‘top, excellent’, bun- ‘base, quite’, cúl- ‘back’, feill- ‘foul, exceedingly’, leath- ‘half, one of two, medium’, meán- ‘middle, medium’, meath- ‘failing, middling’, sruth- ‘slight’, scoth- ‘excellent, medium’; Adjectival: aon- ‘single’, ard- ‘high, excellent’, binn- ‘very’ (← go binn ‘splendidly’ ← binn ‘melodious’), corr- ‘occasional’ (also noun), crua- ‘hard’, dearg‘utmost’ (← ‘red’), fad- (← fada) ‘long’, fíor- ‘true, very’, fuar- ‘cold’, géar- ‘sharp’, gearr- ‘short’, glan- ‘clear, absolute’ (← ‘clean’), lag‘weak’, lán- ‘full, too’, luath- ‘quick’, mion- ‘small’, mór- ‘big’, óg‘young’, ré- ‘moderate’ (← réidh ‘smooth’), seacht- ‘sevenfold, very’, sean- ‘old’ (← sean ‘old’) also sain- ~ sean- ‘utmost’, síor- (← síoraí) ‘continual’, tréan- ‘intense’, trom- ‘heavy, deep’; Verbal: srac- ‘cursory, slight’ (← srac ‘to pull’ or perhaps verbal noun sracadh ‘pulling’).

Only colour adjectives are synchronically common as a category: bán- ‘white’, breac‘speckled, fair’, buí- ‘yellow’, dubh- ‘black, very’, fionn- ‘fair’, geal- ‘bright’, glas‘green’, liath- ‘grey’. Place function is noteworthy in nominal premodifiers and is also apparent in iar- ~ giar- ‘distant’ related to the adverb thiar ‘west, back’. The semantic functions of the other premodifiers are similar to those of the productive prefixes. Note, for example, the number function of leath-: leathsholas ‘one light (of two on car)’ (Ó Sé 2000: 469), the degree function of bun-, breac-, sruth-, srac-, leath- and meath- as well as the intensifier function of barr-, dearg-, dubh-, fíor-, glan-, seacht- and sean-, not to mention síor- and tréan- whose premodifier function and independent lexical semantics coincide. Prefix droch- and preposed adjective sean- are the default attributive forms of adjectives dona and sean respectively. For instance, tá an teach sean ‘the house is old; lit. is the house old’ but is seanteach é ‘it is an old house; lit. is old+house it’. As for the bases they modify, premodifiers occur before nouns, ˈathˌobair ‘repetition of work’, before adjectives, ˈfíorˈbhreá ‘very fine’, and, least freely, before verbs, ˈathˌghróig ‘to refoot (peat)’. Verbal composition in dialects is limited to a few inflected verbs with common premodifiers: comh+líon ‘to compensate; lit. co-fill’ (Breatnach 1961: 104), ath+ghróig ‘to refoot’, rua+dhóigh ‘to scorch; lit. russet+burn’, mór+chónaigh ‘to stay greatly; lit. big-stay’. Only the head is inflected: nominative sean+bhean ‘old woman’ → teach na sean+mhná ‘the house of the old woman’ (base bean, genitive singular mná); although there is a general tendency not to inflect qualified nouns whether with normal adjectival or nominal qualification or premodification or phrasal qualification (Ó Curnáin 2007: 508). Very exceptionally inflection of a premodifier is found: regular ina dheas+láimh ‘in-his right+hand’ but also synonymous ina dheisláimh where deis- is (historically) dative singular adjective as well as (synchronically) a nominal common case (Ó Curnáin 2007: 586). Nominal and adjectival premodifiers can combine in sequence with each other or with prefixes, and prefixes can combine with other prefixes: ˈcorr-ˈfíorˈmháthair ‘occasional truly good mother’ (adjective+adjective+noun), ˈfíor-ˈdheá-ˈdhéanta ‘truly well made’ (adjective+prefix+verbal adjective), ˈan-ˈdeá-ˌdhéanta ‘of very good physique’ (prefix+prefix+verbal adjective). The preposed element can modify the immediately following element or, especially where the following combination is institutionalised, the following combination of element(s) plus base can be modified as a unit, and the difference can, at least optionally, be indicated by stress pattern: [[ˈan-ˈdeá-]ˈdhéanta] ‘[[very

154. Irish

2791

well] made]’ vs. ['an-['deá-ˌdhéanta]] ‘[very [well made]]’. Emphatic repetition of a preposed element is also found: 'an-'an-'deas ‘very very nice’, 'fíor-'fíor'mhaith ‘truly truly good’, and even 'rí-'rí-'rí-'fíor-'chorr'dhuine ‘very very very truly rare person’ is permitted. Copulative compounds are no longer common: crua+chaol ‘hard and thin’, caol+dearg ‘thin and red’ or in set phrases: bun-barr ‘entirely; bottom (and) top’; inclusivity: ó thús deireadh ‘from beginning (to) end’. Exocentric use is typically phrasal (ˈnoun + ˈˈdependent noun (genitive)): béal bráthair ‘person with a big mouth; lit. mouth (of) monkfish’; phrases based on ceann ‘head’: ceann cipín ‘... twig’ ~ ceann maide ‘... stick’ ~ ceann máilléid ‘... mallet’, all three meaning ‘blockhead’ and ceann leitean ‘... porridge’ ~ ceann práisce ‘... mess’ both meaning ‘pudding-head’. That the head noun of the phrase has figurative meaning is indicated by it not being inflected in the vocative: a cheann cipín ‘(oh) blockhead’ (not a *chinn ... in vocative case) as with simplex items with figurative force: a stór ‘my dear; lit. oh store or treasure’.

4. Derivation Derivation primarily involves suffixation. Nonetheless, the three prefixes of ability in‘capable of’ as well do- ‘difficult to’ and its opposite so- ‘easy to’, effect a denominal transposition. Before nouns, which (optionally) take the genitive singular (the historical use), or, in the case of verbal stems, before the verbal adjective, these prefixes can occur in units with predicative and, less productively, with attributive function similar to adjectives: tá tú inpheasála ‘you are passable’ (← in- + peasáil (genitive singular) verbal noun < English pass), áiteanna do-eolais ‘unknown places’ (← genitive of eolas ‘knowledge’). Abstracts of the shape in- + verbal base + -acht are also productive: inchloisteacht ‘audibility’ (← in- + cloiste ‘heard’ + -acht (abstract noun suffix), containing root clois ‘to hear’). Denominal transposition to adjectival function can occur with other prefixes: táimid comhairde (← comh- ‘co-’ + airde ‘height’) ‘we-are (of) equal height’. Although the three ability prefixes are by default passive in meaning, they can have active meaning: inchúnta ‘able to help’ (← in- + cúnamh ‘helping’ (verbal noun cúnamh → genitive of verbal noun cúnta, generally similar or identical to verbal adjective)), dothuisceanach ‘lacking in understanding’ (← do- + tuiscint ‘understanding’ (verbal noun) + -ach (adjectival suffix)), do-mhaite ‘unforgivable’ (passive) and ‘unforgiving’ (active) (← do- + maith ‘to forgive’), solabhartha ‘fluent’ (← so- + labhairt ‘speaking’ (verbal noun)) (contrast the passive meaning of dolabhartha ‘unutterable’). There are instances where a prefix is added to a derived base which is not found independent of prefixation: droch+labhartha ‘evil-tongued’ (← droch ‘bad’ + labhair (verb) ‘to speak’) which has no corresponding base adjective *labhartha (in contrast to synonymous variant droch+labharthach related to base labharthach ‘talkative’; cf. regular verbal adjective labhartha ‘spoken’). Similarly, trom+chroí ‘heavy heart’ and dea+chroí ‘good heart’ form adjectives trom+chroí+och and dea+chroí+och but the independent adjective from croí ‘heart’ is croí+úil ‘hearty’, thus resembling English dependent -hearted and independent hearty. Similarly, only the compound adjective fannchroíoch ‘faint-hearted’ is listed in Ó Dónaill (1978), corresponding to historical fannchr(a)idech. Historically, independent cridech (> -croíoch) and cridemail (> croíúil)

2792

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

are attested but the latter more frequently. And amadán ‘fool’ gives two independently derived forms in Co. Kerry: adjective amadántúil ‘foolish’ but abstract amadántaíocht ‘foolishness’ (Ó hÓgáin 1984: 103; Ó Sé 2000: 480, 475); as Co. Waterford bleaigeard ‘blackguard’ → adjective bleaigeardúil ‘blackguardly’ and activity bleaigeardaíocht ‘blackguardism’. Denominal adjectival suffixes -úil and -ach can be added to phrasal bases: féar-pléúil ‘fair’ (← féar-plé < English fair play); trí chúinne ‘three corners’ related to tríˈchúinneach ‘having three corners’ (Ó Sé 2000: 480). The morphophonological processes of derivational suffixes are similar to those of inflection, effecting stress shift to heavy syllables (largely in Munster), both palatalisation and depalatalisation, delenition, syncope, coalescence, vowel alternation (lengthening, shortening, fronting, backing, raising), final changes such as -ach → -í (corresponding to palatalisation plus -e added to other consonants), consonantal extensions or interfixes (such as th, r, n, s, l but particularly t following n, l, r or a vowel), variable stems and irregular formations as well as suffixal allomorphy; colg /kolǝɡ/ ‘anger’ → colgach /kolǝɡǝx/ ~ coilgneach /kelˊǝɡˊnˊǝx/ ‘irascible’; adjectival suffix -mhar /vǝr/ ~ /uːr/ ~ /fǝr/ ~ /ǝr/. The stem of a given base to which a derivational suffix is added often resembles the genitive and/or plural stem of the same base. It can be analytically ambiguous whether, for instance, a given derivation should be taken to be formed either from a plural stem or from a general stem (on which both the plural and the derived form can be built). Apart from widely suffixed diminutive -ín, the derivational suffix most commonly suffixed to other derivational suffixes is the abstract suffix -acht: Tab. 154.1: Abstract and activity -acht in derivative sequences Noun

Adjective

Agentive -óir, -éir, -í

-ach -áil -án -óg -ín

-úil -mhar -ach -áilte -ánach, -ánta -ógach -ín(t)each

-álaí -ánaí, -ánach -íneach, (-íneadóir)

Abstract and Activity -acht -óireacht, -éireacht, -íocht -úlacht -mhaireacht -acht -áilteacht, -álaíocht -ánaíocht, -ántacht, -ántaíocht -ógacht -ín(t)eacht

This can be contrasted with non-suffixation of, for instance, activity and abstract -áil in similar sequences: *+án(t)+áil, *+óg+áil, *+ín(t)+eáil (all five absent in Doyle and Gussmann 1996); although negative affect is indicated in sequenced activity and abstract +arn+áil, +am+áil and marginal +amas+áil. Abstract and activity -acht is also suffixed by activity -áil: +acht+áil and adjectival -úil and -ach: +acht+úil and +acht+ach. Instances of derivative sequences are: fán ‘wandering’ → fánaí ‘wanderer’ (agentive -í) also ‘wandering’ (abstract and activity -í) → fánaíocht ‘wandering’; maith ‘good’ (adjective) → maitheas ‘good’ (noun) → maitheasaí ‘good worker’; cf. suaimhneas ‘tranquility’ related to suaimhneach ‘tranquil’ and derived suaimhneasach ‘soothing’. Double occurrences of abstract -acht in sequence are very rare and involve -acht+úl+acht around

154. Irish

2793

adjectival -úil: (daon ‘human being’ >) adjective daonna ‘human’ → daonnacht ‘humanity’ → daonnachtúil ‘humane’ → daonnachtúlacht ‘humaneness’ (cf. also duine ‘person’ → duineata (adjective) ‘human’ → duineatacht ‘kindliness’ and similar duiniúil (adjective) ‘human’ → duiniúlacht ‘kindliness’); oidhre ‘heir’ → oidhreacht ‘inheritance’ → modern biological terminology oidhreachtúil ‘hereditary’ → modern biology oidhreachtúlacht ‘heredity; lit. hereditariness’; also aer+ach+t+úl+acht ‘eeriness’ (← base aer ‘air’). Cf. also dialectal (diachronic) double agentive +éar+aí (section 4.1.1). Regarding the interaction of composition and derivation, an instance of the typical idiosyncracies of word-formation is seen, for West Co. Galway, in compound adjective bánlíoch ‘pallid’ (← bán ‘white’, lí ‘complexion’) whose base compound noun bánlí ‘pale complexion’ and corresponding simple adjective líoch or líogh(dh)ach ‘colourful’ are not current in West Co. Galway (Ó Curnáin 2007: 2395, 2528). Also idiosyncratic: margadh ‘market, bargain’ (with dialectal plural margáintí in the meaning ‘bargains’) → margáintíocht (irregular) ~ margáil (regular) ‘bargaining’; and spág ‘broad foot’ → spág+áil (regular) ~ spáigirl+íneacht (idiosyncratic with inserted -irl-) ‘walking clumsily’.

4.1. Nominal derivation Denominal suffixes have the largest set of endings; deadjectival or deverbal suffixes are generally a subset of denominal suffixes. The adjectival suffix -ach can regularly function as a nominaliser, for example with surnames: Ó Súilleabháin ‘O’Sullivan’ → Súilleabhánach ‘an O’Sullivan’ (noun) or ‘belonging to O’Sullivan’ (adjective), and with place names: an Fhrainc ‘France’ → Francach ‘French person’ or ‘French’. In Ó Sé (2000: 477) -ánach is noteworthy in this function: an Rúis ‘Russia’ → Rúiseánach ‘Russian person’; cf. Meirice(á) ‘America’ → adjective and noun Meiriceánach ‘American’. Similarly, Gaillimh ‘Galway’ → Gaillimheach ‘Galway person’ but exceptional -íneach in Condae an Chláir ‘County Clare’ → Cláiríneach ‘person from Clare’.

4.1.1. Denominal nouns L a n g u a g e n a m e s are formed with -is: an Ghearmáin ‘Germany’ → Gearmáinis ‘German (language)’, non-vernacular formation Gaelscoil ‘Irish-language (emersion) school; lit. Gaelschool’ → Gaelscoilis ‘emersion Irish’. P e r s o n a l s u f f i x e s include -í, -éir, -óir, -ire (all of which are generally agentive; with borrowings all four are found but -éir is most frequent), and the typically nonagentive -ach, -án and -óg. Diminutive -ín is occasionally personal: gruaim ‘gloom’ → gruaimín ‘gloomy little fellow’, fuaidrín ‘flighty woman’ (← fuaidreamh ‘wandering, fuss’). a) -í: scéal ‘story’ → scéalaí ‘story-teller’; often following morphologically complex bases containing, for instance, -án, -ún, -óid: amhrán ‘song’ → amhránaí ‘singer’; borrowing comrádaí ‘comrade’; similarly, often added to bases in nominal and verbal suffix -áil: útamáil ‘fumbling’ → útamálaí ‘fumbler’, crágáil ‘to plod’ (← cráig ‘large foot’) → crágálaí ‘(strong) walker’, thus common with English borrowings:

2794

b)

c)

d) e)

f) g)

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic English box → bacsáil (verb and verbal noun) → bacsálaí ‘boxer’. Note seanchas ‘lore’ → seanchaí ~ seanchasaí ‘traditional story-teller’. -éir (also -éar (~ -aer), -éara, -éaraí): siúinéir ‘carpenter’ (cf. siúnta ‘joint’), bácáil ‘to bake (verb), baking (verbal noun)’ → báicéir ‘baker’ (from which báicéireacht ‘baking’, see abstract -acht in this section). -óir (also -tóir, -teoir, -adóir): bád ‘boat’ → bádóir ‘boatman’, noun moill ‘delay’ and verb moilligh ‘to delay’ → moilleadóir ‘lingerer’, crú ‘(horse)shoe’ → crúdóir ‘farrier’, note muirín ‘scallop’ → muiríneadóir ‘scallop gatherer’ containing four syllables (the only word ending in -íneadóir given in Doyle and Gussmann 1996), in contradiction of the proposed maximum of three syllables in Doyle’s “Rule 2” (1992: 88−89) as is seomradóir ‘chamberlain’ (← seomra ‘room’) when pronounced seomaradóir cited in Doyle (1992: 90). Non-compound words of five syllables are very rare: corach+adóir+eacht ‘rowing a currach’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 2228, corresponding to standard tetrasyllabic curachóireacht), or dealbh+adóir+eacht, pronounced dealabhadóireacht (~ dealbh+óir) ‘sculptor’ (← dealbh ‘statue’), cf. cailimhineog+ach ‘covered with green scum’. Interestingly, the activity noun corresponding to muiríneadóir is muirínteacht ‘gathering scallops’ and expected pentasyllabic *muiríneadóireacht is not given in Ó Dónaill (1978). Final -ach of a base noun is absent in, for example, criathrach ‘bog’ → criathróir ‘bog-worker’, gliomach ‘lobster’ → gliomadóir ‘lobster-fisher’, as is -ín in the English borrowing lóistín ‘lodging’ → lóisteoir ‘lodger’ (also synonymous lóist+éir and, with retention of base -ín, lóistín+each). -ire: iasc ‘fish’ → iascaire ‘fisherman’, cf. borrowing ministir ~ ministéir ‘minister’. Non-agentive in slat ‘rod’ → slataire ‘tall youth’. -ach (also -ánach, -íoch, -íneach): bréag ‘lie’ → bréagach ‘liar’, féar ‘grass’ → féaránach ‘grazing animal’, Corcaigh ‘Cork’ → Corcaíoch ‘Corkonian’; -íneach, which contains diminutive -ín, is typically disparaging: meirg ‘rust, crustiness’ → meirgíneach ‘crabbed woman’, also adjective and noun meirgeach ‘crusty (person)’. Cf. borrowing chaplain > séiplíneach ‘curate’ (rare séiplín Wagner 1958−69: question 786). -án (also -achán): bocht ‘poor’ → bochtán ‘pauper’; -achán has disparaging meaning: smaois ‘snot’ (→ smaoiseach ‘snotty’) → smaoiseachán ‘sniveller’. -óg: feminine ending common with female reference: planda ‘plant’ → plandóg ‘shapely woman’, pit ‘vulva’ → piteog (~ piteán ~ piteachán) ‘effeminate man’, cf. ciotóg ‘left hand, left-handed person’ (cf. ciotach ‘left-handed’).

Variation between agentive suffixes is common both intra- and interdialectally, often with little or no semantic differentiation: saothar ‘labour’ → saothraí ~ saothraíoch ‘toiler’; gnotha ‘business’ → gnothaí ~ gnothach ‘industrious worker’; reilig ‘graveyard’ → reiligire ~ reiligeadóir ~ reiligeoir ‘sexton’. Most of Connacht, as well as SouthWest Donegal, has suffixed agentive -í to agentive -éir/-éar to form -éaraí (except for two areas, one in the east and one in the south-west, the latter having interstitial -éara, an historical genitive form, interpretable as an interdialectal compromise or “fudge”). Cf. -án ~ -ánaí: ceolán ~ ceolánaí ‘incessant talker’ (Breatnach 1961 s. v.) ← ceol ‘music’. Reduction of vocalic length can lead to -éir and -óir fusing in Ulster. An indication of some of the morphological, lexical and phrasal variation can be gained from a trawl through Wagner’s questionnaire returns of his dialect survey (1958−69: questions 593, 681, 959, 525, 3, 678, 216, 746, 937, 786, 312, 624); ten of which are summarised here:

154. Irish

2795

1. Two agentives, ‘scythe-man’ spealadóir (← noun (and verb) speal ‘scythe, to scythe’) and ‘weaver’ fíodóir (← verb ‘figh’ ‘to weave’), show no morphological variation but there is one instance of lexical variance: South-East Munster spólaer /spoːleːr/ ‘weaver’ ← noun spól ‘shuttle’. The former also has instances of the phrasal agentive alternant (person + genitive): fear speile ‘man (of) scythe’. 2. ‘Farmer’ feirmeoir ~ feirméir ← noun feirm ‘farm’ with -eoir in Munster (also -úir through nasalised vowel-raising in Munster, thus homophonous with -úir in borrowings such as saighdiúir ‘soldier’) and -eoir as a variant in Ulster (also plural fármarz, cf. farmóir Ó Baoill 1996: 136; pronounced feilmir Wagner 1959: 221), and -éir (-éar, -éara, -éaraí) in Connacht and South-West Cork in Munster. Ulster also has the phrasal alternant fear talamh ‘man (of) land’. 3. ‘Thatcher’ díonadóir (← díon ‘shelter, covering, roof’) is found only in Munster where it is the main lexeme, but Munster also returns tuíodóir (← tuí ‘thatch, straw’) which is the main word in Connacht and Ulster. Minor variants are: a. díonóir (disyllabic, thus interdialectal, form found in North Munster where disyllabic tuíodóir is also returned); b. North Connacht clúdachóir ‘coverer’ (← clúdach ‘cover’) and neighbouring c. phrasal fear cumhdaigh ‘man (of) covering/roof’. 4. ‘(Cattle) buyer’ ceannaitheoir (← verb ceannaithe (verbal adjective, genitive), ceannaigh ‘to buy’) is the main variant in Ireland based on the native verb. Three other related variants are: a. ceannachóir (← verbal noun ceannach ‘buying’) dominant in Connacht; North Ulster b. ceannaí and c. ceannaíoch; as well as phrasal West Connacht fear ceannach beithígh ‘man (of) buying (of) cattle’. A later borrowed alternative from English jobber > jab- (also job-) is common in Munster and Connacht: jaibéir ~ jabaer in Munster with the main agentive suffix for borrowings but jabaire in Connacht with -ire which is, however, most frequent with native (non-verbal) bases (Doyle 1992: 104), although there are several semantically relatable words in -baire such as cabaire ‘babbler’, sciobaire ‘snatcher’, bobaire ‘trickster’. 5. ‘Miller’ muilleoir varies with muillteoir (~ muilltheoir in Munster) (through syncope and coalescence ← muileann ‘mill’) in all three provinces. Minor variants: a. muilléar East Galway; b. muileannóir West Galway; c. muilleadóir North-West Mayo; as well as phrasal fear (an) m(h)uilinn ‘man (of) (the) mill’ and fear meilte ‘man (of) grinding’. 6. ‘Knitter’ cniotálaí (← verb and verbal noun cniotáil ‘to knit, knitting’) found in all three provinces, but one instance of cniotadóir (West Mayo, cf. muilleadóir); phrasal variants bean c(h)niotála ‘woman (of) knitting’ are just as commonly returned as derived cniotálaí. 7. ‘Beggar’ bacach is the main lexeme (← adjective bacach ‘lame’); commonest in Munster, but also found in Connacht and Ulster; literal fear bocht ‘poor man’ is also common (with variants duine bocht ‘poor person’, bean bhocht ‘poor woman’). Noun phrases are fear siúil ‘itenerant, tramp; lit. man (of) walking’ and fear déirce ‘man (of) alms’; as well as instances of the three-constituent agentive phrases (agent + verbal noun (genitive) + object (genitive)): fear iarraidh na déirce ‘man (of) asking (of) the alms’ and fear cruinniú déirce ‘man (of) gathering (of) alms’. Minor variants are derived bocht+án ‘poor person’ (← bocht ‘poor’) and puicéaraí ‘packman’ (standard pacaire) (← paca ‘pack’). 8. ‘Herdsman’ a. aoire main word in Munster, b. maor also in Munster but especially in Connacht, c. sípéar(aí) (borrowing ‘shepherd; lit. sheep+er’) in South-East Con-

2796

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

nacht; also commonly qualified by ‘of (the) cow(s)’: aoire bó/ba/na mba, and regularly qualified buachaill ‘boy’, d. buachaill bó/ba/na bó/na mbó in Munster, North-East Connacht and almost exclusive form in Ulster; rare e. stíobhard ‘steward’ (Co. Galway), f. sréadaí (Co. Donegal) < tréad+aí ‘herd+er’. 9. ‘Stranger’ borrowing stra(i)nséar, stróinséar with variants of the suffix as described in this section, also coimhthíoch (noun) ~ duine/fear coimhthíoch (adjective) ‘strange person/man’ in Ulster, following the pattern of older and phrasal items found in Ulster agentives ((2) fear talamh, (8) buachaill bó) in contrast to innovations and borrowings to the south. Suffixes -ach, -án and -óg are often, and the latter two predominantly, n o n - p e r s o n a l : cnoc ‘hill’ → cnocán ‘hillock’, bréag ‘lie’ → bréagán ‘toy’, maoil ‘bare top, contents above rim of receptacle’ → maológ ‘part of contents placed above rim of receptacle’. Variation between personal and non-personal functions is common: ailp ‘chunk’ (also figuratively ‘chunky person’) and alp ‘gulp’ → alp+aire ‘voracious eater, chunky object’ (cf. variant ailp+éir ‘voracious eater’), alp+achán ‘voracious eater, chunky object or person’, alp+án ~ alp+óg ‘chunky object or person’. Suffixes -ach, -án and -óg are often found in synonymous or semantically close variants: feminine brídeach ~ brídeog ‘bride’; dona ‘bad’ → donán ‘wretch (person)’ and donóg ‘wretch (woman)’; broc(ach) ‘dirt(y)’ → brocachán ‘dirty-faced person’ and brocóg ‘dirty-faced girl’; briotachán ~ briotaire ‘lisping person’ and briotóg ‘lisping woman’ (← adjective briotach ‘lisping’). Given such pairs of male -án and female -óg, one might have expected a productive sex differentiation similar to English agent+ess (cf. borrowings máistir < master and máistreás ‘mistress’); this -án vs. -óg contrast, however, is not productive and terminological premodifier ban- ‘female’ is used instead (as well as rarer fear- ‘man’ in compounds). Diachronic (-án, -óg) and synchronic (-ín) diminutive force is seen in variants such as fearbán ~ fearbóg ~ feirbín ‘(small) welt’ ← fearb ‘welt’. Compare (earlier) borrowings cábán < English cabin, gairdín < English garden. Feminine suffix -óg is found most frequently in Northern dialects, particularly in Ulster, corresponding to southern -án (masculine) or -ín (masculine > both genders) in certain lexemes or to no suffix (O’Rahilly 1972: 186): Ulster and North Connacht crumhóg ‘maggot’ and faoileog ‘seagull’ (and even faoileogán) but Southern cruimh, faoileán (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: 210, 217); including an instance counter to natural gender in the borrowing of English bullock > Ulster bológ but Southern (also South Donegal) bullán (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: 7). (Other examples from Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: eireog ‘chickens’ 35, bogóg ‘shell-less egg’ 46, tonnóg ‘duck’ 48, beachóg ‘bee’ 49, (s)corróg ‘hip’ 133, sopóg ‘sheaf’ 185, bachlóg ‘sprout’ 186, luchóg ‘mouse’ 211, bodóg ‘searod’ 269, faochóg ‘periwinkle’ 271, crannóg ‘winding frame (for fishing-line)’ 275, gobóg ‘dogfish’ 287, cf. tornóg ‘kiln’ 263, pardóg ~ feadhnóg ‘pannier-basket’ 58.) Compare English spoon > spúnóg generally, except in farthest north and south: North Ulster spáin and South Munster sp(i)ún (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: 165). The opposite dialectal distribution occurs in Ulster scamhán ‘lung’ but Southern (including South Donegal) scamhóg (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: 140), and Northern buil(bh)ín ‘loaf’ but Munster bulóg (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: 76) in contrast with Ulster bológ ‘bullock’, cf. Southern neantóg ‘nettle’ (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: 249), also Connacht bodóg ‘heifer’ (Wagner 1958–69 Vol. 1: 9) in contrast with North Donegal bodóg ‘searod’. D e n o m i n a l a b s t r a c t s u f f i x e s also function in aggregate nouns of status and very commonly in nouns of activity which often enter into verbal use preceded by the

154. Irish

2797

progressive particle ag similar to verbal nouns: Gaeilgeoir ‘Irish speaker’ → Gaeilgeoireacht ‘speaking Irish’, tá sí ag Gaeilgeoireacht ‘she is speaking Irish’. Similarly, áibhirseoir ‘devil, rascal’ → ag áibhirseoireacht ‘(engaged in) mischief-making’ (Ó hÓgáin 1984 s. v., in contradiction of Doyle 1992: 59). The suffixes -áil and -íl, which are generally verbal-noun endings, are also found in abstract function: bradach ‘thieving’ (adjective) → bradaíl ‘thieving’ (noun). A subset of those suffixes found in denominal function are found in deadjectival abstract use. The analytic choice of actual base from an adjective, a related noun or even a verb, might be arbitrary: adjective sásta ‘satisfied’ and noun sásamh ‘satisfaction’ and verb sásaigh ‘to satisfy’ → sástacht ~ sástaíocht ~ sásaíocht ‘satisfaction’ (also adjectives sásúil and sásmhar ‘satisfactory’ → respectively sásúlacht and sásmhaireacht ‘satisfactoriness’). a) -e: bréag ‘lie’ → bréige ‘falseness’; b) -ach (also -úch), -acht (also -íocht): béic ‘yell’ → béiceach ~ béiciúch ‘yelling’, cladhaire ‘coward’ → claidhreacht ~ claidhríocht ‘cowardice’; c) -as (also -achas, -amas, -anas): muintir ‘kinsfolk’ → muintearas ‘kinship’, leanúint ‘following’ → leanúnachas ‘attachment’; d) -an, -án (also -achan, -achán): maidin ‘morning’ → maidneachan ‘dawn(ing)’. Although -acht and -íocht are often synonymous (e.g., ainnis ‘wretched’ → ainnise ~ ainnisí ~ ainniseacht ~ ainnisíocht ‘wretchedness’), more common -acht can have more abstract meaning than -íocht which often has meaning of activity or behaviour. Thus -acht often retains a link with adjectival -ach, similar to adjective+ness evident in -úl+acht and -mhair+eacht, whereas -íocht retains a link with verbs and agentive -í, thus verb/noun+ing, and is similar to -óireacht, -éireacht which are clearly linked to agentive -óir and -éir. For instance, aer ‘air, gaiety’ → aerach ‘light-hearted’ → aeracht ‘lightheartedness, gaiety’ but aeraíocht ‘open-air entertainment’ including progressive ag aeraíocht ‘taking the air’, cf. activity aermaíocht ~ aermáil ‘plearure-seeking’. A similar distinction of abstract -acht (-e, etc.) vs. activity -íocht (-áil, etc.) can be found with greater variation in: righin ‘tough, slow’ (→ righnigh ‘to toughen, linger’) → abstract righn+e ~ righn+eas ~ righn+eachas ~ righn+eadas ~ righn+eacht ‘toughness, slowness’ but activity righn+eáil ~ righn+eacáil ~ righn+eadóir+eacht ~ righn+ealtaíocht ~ righn+íocht ‘lingering’ (related to agentive righn+eál+aí ~ righn+eál+ach ~ righn+eacál+aí ~ righn+eadóir ~ righn+eartál+aí ‘lingerer’). Activity nominals are common from deverbal agentives, thus producing common related activity doublets: coill ‘to geld’ → coillteoir ‘gelder’ → coillteoireacht ‘castration’ functioning similar to verbal noun coilleadh ‘gelding’. In some instances the agentive noun is not attested: guí ‘prayer’ → guíodóireacht ‘constant praying’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 632), adverbial istoíche ‘at night’ (< oíche ‘night’) → istoícheadóireacht ‘night-visiting’ (Ó hAirt 1988 s. v.); sagart ‘priest’ → sagartóireacht ‘priesthood’ cited in section 2. As well as considerable variation among synonymous suffixes added to the same or similar base, e.g., bréan ‘putrid’ → bréin+e ~ bréan+adas ~ bréin+eadas ~ bréan+tas ~ bréan+tamas ~ bréan+tanas ‘putrefication’, there is a tendency to combine abstract suffixes together, e.g., the creative effervescence in cac ‘excrement’ → cacamas ‘filth’, cacamáil ‘smutty behaviour’, cacamasáil ‘working in filth’ (such a combinational tendency, similar to synaffixes, is far more developed in nominal plural allomorphy). Compare further analysability in -an+as and -ach+as (cf. -n+ach+as in maith+ún+ach+as in section 4.1.2).

2798

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

Some common denominal abstract nouns can also be count nouns: maith ‘good’ → maitheas ‘goodness’, plural maitheasaí ‘gifts’; fearas ‘equipment’, plural fearais(tí) ‘tools’; eolas ‘knowledge’, plural eolais(t)í ‘items of knowledge’ (Ó hAirt 1988 s. v.; Ó Sé 2000: 96); nua ‘new’ → nuacht ‘news’, plural nuachta(í) ‘items of news’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 2304 s. v. nuaíocht; Dinneen 1911 s. v. nuadhacht). D e n o m i n a l d i m i n u t i v e s are derived by suffixation of -ín which is highly productive (except in most of Ulster; O’Rahilly 1972: 186): pionta ‘pint’ → pintín ‘small pint’, bacach ‘tramp’ → baicín ‘small tramp’, cnoc+án ‘hillock’ (< -án historical diminutive) → cnoc+áin+ín ‘small hillock’, bád+óir ‘boatman’ → bád+óir+ín ‘small boatman’ (Doyle 1992: 121 casts doubt on the productivity of -ín suffixed to complex agentives, but these are not uncommon: táilliúir+ín ‘small tailor’, and note jabaeir+ín ‘small cattle-buyer’ cited, in a different context, by Doyle 1992: 125), sram+ach+án → sram+ach+áin+ín ‘little blear-eyed person’; current borrowings: package → peaicijín ‘small package’; including, to a lesser extent, non-count and abstract nouns: féar ‘grass’ → féirín ‘small or short (growth of) grass’, dochar ‘harm’ → dochairín ‘small (amount of) harm’, uaigneas ‘lonesomeness’ → uaignisín ‘small (degree of) lonesomeness’, current borrowing speed → spídín deas ‘nice bit of speed’. Infantile context allows for informal suffixation to inflected preposition in chugaitín (to-2SG-DIMINUTIVE) ‘look out (to child)’ (← chugat (to-2SG) ‘to you; also: look out!’ ← chun or chuig ‘to’). Evaluative force is common, either affectionate or pejorative: affectionate ainsín ‘darling’ (← ansa ‘dearest’), stóirín ‘darling’ (← stór ‘darling, store’), úillín ‘darling’ (← úll ‘apple’) also úillín óir ‘pampered child; lit. small apple/darling (of) gold’, leoinín ‘pet, darling’ (← leon ‘lion’ or leamhan ‘moth’); pejorative dailtín ‘brat, cad’ (← dalta ‘foster-child, pupil’), éigsín ‘poetaster’ (← éigeas ‘poet’ also éigse ‘poets’); pejorative with agentive force déircín ‘beggarly person’ (← déirc ‘alms’). Incorporated in interjections: seabhain ~ seabhainín ~ seabhaín ~ seibhín ~ saidheoir, etc., ‘call to sheep’ (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v.); seoithín seó ‘lullaby’; cf. English Hello+een (Ó Curnáin 2007: 2005) with -een < -ín. Some word pairs contrast in lexicalised derivation vs. productive formation: paidir ‘prayer’ > paidrín ‘rosary’ but paidir → paidirín ‘small prayer’. Although productive -ín can be suffixed to lexicalised -ín (cúil+ín+ín ‘small beautiful(-haired) maid’) productive -ín is avoided in *diúilicín+ín ‘small mussel’. In plant names, -ín is common: duáinín an tseanchais ‘self-heal; lit. small kidney of the lore’ also called duán donn ‘brown kidney’. In West Co. Galway (Ó Curnáin 2007: 652−653), one finds predominantly optional suffixation of -ín (in plural -íní) to nominal plural inflection of a small group of nouns with irregular or rarer plural allomorphs: faocha ‘periwinkle’ → plural faochain → plural with diminutive faochainíní; teach ‘house’ → diminutive teachaín, plural teachaíní, but also titheabhaíní ← plural titheabhaí ‘houses’. The suffix -ín can act as a base for further derivational suffixation: -íneach noun and adjective, -ínteacht abstract noun, which can have repetitive meaning (short (repeated) events): méar ‘finger’ (→ méirín) → méirínteacht ‘fingering, meddling’; adjective mín ‘smooth’ (→ mínigh ‘to smooth, explain’) → mínín(t)eacht ‘daintiness, niggling’; cf. -ínteacht as verbal noun suffix: reith ‘to rut’ → reithínteacht ‘rutting’ also reithíocht.

154. Irish

2799

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Diachronically, -án and -óg are important nominalising suffixes. a) -án (also -achán): bocht ‘poor’ → bochtán ‘poor person’; series analysable as caill ‘to lose’ → caillte (verbal adjective) ‘lost’ and adjective caillteach ‘losing’ → caillteachán ‘wretch’; b) -óg: bréan ‘putrid’ → bréanóg ‘refuse heap’. Main d e a d j e c t i v a l a b s t r a c t s u f f i x e s are -e; -adas (-as, -antas). Suffixes which commonly both effect denominal and deadjectival functions are: -as, -achas, -amas; -acht, -íocht; -an, -án. a) -e (also -chte), -í: uasal ‘noble’ → uaisle ‘nobility’, -chte follows vowels: breá ‘fine’ → breáichte ‘beauty’; déanach ‘late’ → déanaí ‘lateness’; b) -ach, -acht (also -íocht, -ineacht): tirim ‘dry’ → triomach ‘drought’, glan ‘clean’ → glaineacht ‘cleanliness’, plánáilte ‘plain’ → plánáilteacht ‘plainness’, aimlithe ‘wretched’ → aimlitheacht ~ aimlíocht ‘wretchedness’, added to adverbial gan+fhios (← gan ‘without’ + fios ‘knowledge’) ‘without knowledge’ or ‘secretly’ → ganfhiosaíocht ‘secrecy’, therefore ag ganfhiosaíocht ‘acting secretively’ (Ó hAirt 1988 s. v.), bocht ‘poor’ → bochtaineacht ‘poverty’; c) -as (also -adas, -achas, -amas, -anas, -antas): ciúin ‘silent’ → ciúineas ‘silence’, bocht ‘poor’ → bochtanas ‘poverty’; -adas is taken as productive (in contradiction of Doyle 1992: 26 n. 4; cf. Doyle and Gussman 1996: 317 who list over 40 lexemes in -adas), in variation with -antas and -acht ~ -íocht in bodhar ‘deaf’ → bodhaireadas ~ bodhaireantas ~ bodhaireacht ~ bodhraíocht ‘deafness’; -amas indicates loathsomeness: goirt ‘saline’ → goirteamas ‘saltiness’; d) -an, -án (also -achan, -achán): gann ‘scarce’ → ganntan ‘scarcity’; crua ‘hard’ → cruatan ~ cruaitean ‘hardship’. An a b s t r a c t c o m p a r a t i v e ( o f d e g r e e ) is formed from adjectives using morphology of both comparative adjective (inflectional) and abstract noun (derivational) (cf. Table 154.2): misniúil ‘courageous’ → ‘how courageous’ or ‘given the courageousness’ a mhisniúla (= níos misniúla ‘more courageous’ comparative in final schwa) ~ a mhis-

Tab. 154.2: Intersection of comparative and abstract in abstract comparative

2800

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

niúlacht (= an mhisniúlacht ‘courageousness’ abstract in -acht) where a is (bleached from an original) proleptic 3 masculine possessive pronoun ‘its’; one cannot say comparative níos *misniúlacht nor nominal an *mhisniúla. The morphological intersection of abstract comparative with comparative and abstract systems can be illustrated from Ó Curnáin (2007: 564−569, 642−647) by a selection of some of the alternants of garbh ‘rough’, misniúil ‘courageous’, uasal ‘noble’, meirbh ‘sultry’, breá ‘fine’, te ‘warm’, and irregular maith ‘good’. This indicates, for instance, that uaisle belongs to all three types: comparative níos uaisle ‘more noble’, abstract comparative a uaisle ‘how noble’, abstract an uaisle ‘the nobility’; but that irregular fearr is comparative only: níos fearr ‘better’; and that maitheas and goirfe were attested in abstract comparative only: a mhaitheas ‘how good’, a ghoirfe ‘how rough’; and meirfean is abstract only: an meirfean ‘the faintness, sultriness’. D i m i n u t i v e -ín is more limitedly found (Ó Curnáin 2007: 648−650) with adjectives, in contexts of familiarity, particularly in interactions with young children: álainn ‘beautiful’ → álainnín, beag ‘small’ → beigín, beag bídeach ‘(small and) tiny’ → beag bídeachaín; buidéil+íní beaga bídeach+aíne ‘small little tiny bottles’; cf. nominalised láchaín ‘fondling’ (← adjective lách ‘kind’) which corresponds to more common derivation of the diminutivised abstract noun láínteacht ‘fondling’ (← lách + -ín + teacht).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns P e r s o n a l s u f f i x e s are instanced here. a) -í: see examples of verbal -áil → -álaí (section 4.1.1); b) -óir (also -tóir, -teoir, -adóir) largely with verbs of the 1st conjugation, and -itheoir, -adóir largely with verbs of the 2nd conjugation: múin ‘to teach’ → múinteoir ‘teacher’, ceannaigh ‘to buy’ → ceannaitheoir ‘buyer’ also ceannach(t) ‘buying’ → ceannachóir ‘buyer’ (cf. section 4.1.1 (4)), dathaigh ‘to colour, dye’ → dathadóir ‘dyer, exaggerator’, mallaigh ‘to curse’ → mallaitheoir ~ mallaíodóir ‘curser’, cf. seol ‘sail, to sail’ (noun and verb) → seoltóir ‘sailor’. The d in -adóir can function similar to an interfix between vowels: figh ‘to weave’ → fíodóir; in South Connacht it often replaces -itheoir: slánaigh ‘to redeem’ → slánaitheoir ~ slánaíodóir ‘saviour’. The a b s t r a c t n o u n derived from the verb maith ‘to forgive’ (converted from adjective maith ‘good’) can serve as a simple illustration of intra- and interdialectal variation of synonymous suffixes -únas, -únachas, -anas ‘forgiveness, pardon’ (mostly from Wagner 1958−69: question 785), set out from north to south: (3)

a. maith+iúnas most widespread; Ulster (where also metathesised maúthnas, and mixed maúthúnas), North-West Connacht, East and North Munster; b. mai+tiúnas interstitial; North Connacht, between maithiúnas to north and maiteanas to south; c. mai+teanas general in Connacht (for ahistorical t cf. verbal adjective maite ‘forgiven’) also for by-form mai+teachas (Ó Curnáin 2007: 631, 638) cf. -únachas to the south; d. maith+iúnachas general in South-West Munster.

154. Irish

2801

4.2. Adjectival derivation The main adjectival suffix with native bases is -ach; most productive with modern borrowings is -áilte (identical to verbal adjective of verbs in -áil). Others are -mhar, -úil and, related to the verbal adjective, -tha(í) and -ta(í) and -íthe as well as -í, -da and -a.

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives Denominal adjectives have the widest range of suffixes. Variation is common: féar ‘grass’ → féarach ~ féarmhar ~ féarúil ‘grassy’. a) -ach: scéalach ‘news-bearing’ (← scéal ‘story, news’), uachtarach ‘upper’ (← uachtar ‘top’); b) -mhar: greannmhar ‘funny’ (← greann ‘fun’), solasmhar ‘bright’ (← solas ‘light’); c) -úil: nimhiúil ‘poisonous’ (← nimh ‘poison’), dul-chun-cinniúil ‘progressive’ (← dul chun cinn ‘progress; lit. going a+head’); d) -áilte ~ -álta mostly with English borrowings: geatáilte ‘affected’ (← geata ‘affected manner’ < English gait), prionsabálta ‘high-principled’ (← prionsabal ‘principle’); e) -tha(í) (also -ta(í), -íthe, -í, -da, -a, -ga): muinteartha ‘friendly’ (← muintir ‘kinsfolk’), diabhalta(í) ‘devilish’ (← diabhal ‘devil’); sclutaíthe ‘starving’ (← gluta ‘maw’); teasaí ‘hot’ (← teas ‘heat’); gallda ‘foreign’ (← gall ‘foreigner’); gruama ‘gloomy’ (← gruaim ‘gloom’); fearga ‘manly’ (← fear ‘man’).

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Deadjectival adjectives with semantic modification take suffixed -mhar, -úil, -ga: beo ‘alive’ → beomhar ~ beodhúil ~ beoga ‘lively’; suffixed -í: trom ‘heavy’ → tromaí ‘weighty’. Deadjectival adjectives with little or no semantic modification take suffixed a. -ach: iargúil ‘remote’ → iargúlach ‘remote’; cúthal ‘shy’ → cúthaileach ‘shy’; duairc ‘morose’ → duairceach ‘morose’; sí ‘fairy’ → síúil ‘fairy-like, haunted’ → síúlach ‘fairy-like, haunted’; diabhaltach ‘devilish’ can be derived from diabhalta ‘devilish’; suffixed b. -ta: cúthail ‘shy’ → cúthalta ‘shy’, fiáin ‘wild’ → fiánta ‘wild’. -áilte can be suffixed to most English adjectives: cute → ciúiteáilte ‘cute’; tough → tiufáilte ‘tough’. Many English adjectives in -y remain as such, thus resembling native -í: busy → biusaí; but English tricky (← trick) → truicí ~ truiceáilte.

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives The suffix -ach is attached to verbal stems (similar to verbal adjective and to genitive of verbal noun): caillteach ‘short of’ (← caill ‘to lose’, verbal adjective caillte ‘lost’), fiafraitheach ~ fiafraíoch ‘inquisitive’ (← fiafraigh ‘to inquire’, verbal adjective fiafraithe ‘inquired’), deimhnitheach ‘certain’ (← deimhnigh ‘to assure’, verbal adjective deimhnithe ‘assured’).

2802

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

4.3. Verbal derivation Verbalisation of native roots in the vernacular is quite restricted. The main verbalising suffixes are -igh and -áil, the latter being productive in speech, in particular in its largely obligatory function to nativise current verbal borrowings from English verbs, nouns and adjectives. For instance, -igh: dath ‘colour’ → dathaigh ‘to colour’; -áil: gualainn ‘shoulder’ → guailleáil ‘to shoulder’. Productive -áil is found with borrowed nouns which are also converted verbs in English: English clock → clacáil (‘clock’-áil). Deadjectival verb in -igh: íseal ‘low’ → ísligh ‘to lower’. Productive -áil is found with borrowed adjectives which are also converted verbs in English: English tidy → teidhdíáil (‘tidy’-áil). Deverbal verbs are arguably found along with converted bases which can have derived alternates: cúl ‘back’ → cúl ~ cúlaigh ‘to back’. The two suffixes, as well as conversion, are found in variants of snaidhm ‘knot’ (noun) → snaidhm ~ snadhmnaigh ~ snadhmáil ‘to knot’, the latter being the most recent formation. Less commonly, verbal bases can acquire suffix -áil: fuaigh ~ fuáil ‘to sew’, the finite fuáil having extended from verbal noun fuáil ‘sewing’.

4.4. Adverbial derivation There is no productive adverbial derivation. Adjectives in adverbial position can be preceded by adverbial particle go: go trom ‘heavily’ (← trom ‘heavy’). Diminutive -ín is lexicalised with diminutivised variants of the lexical adverbs go fóill ‘yet’ → go fóillín ‘yet (a small while)’ and ar ball ‘later’ → ar baillín ‘a small while later’.

5. Conversion Conversion is generally quite restricted. An alternative syntactic means is provided by the particle “verb” is ‘is’, known as the copula, which is noteworthy in its function to support constructions, based mainly on adjectives, which correspond to verbal predicates in other languages: is maith le ‘likes; lit. is good with (experiencer)’.

5.1. Nominal conversion D e a d j e c t i v a l n o u n s can be formed via conversion from simple adjectives and are typically masculine, the default gender: trom ‘heavy’ → ‘weight, importance’, cothrom ‘level’ → ‘level, equal, equity’ (éagothrom ‘uneven, inequitable’ → ‘unevenness, inequality’), caol ‘thin, narrow’ → ‘slender part’, marbh ‘dead’ → ‘dead person’, ceart ‘right’ → ‘right’ (éigeart ‘wrong’ → ‘wrong’); but some are feminine: domhain ‘deep’ → ‘depth’, tanaí ‘thin, shallow’ → ‘shallow water’, cóir ‘just’ → ‘justice’ (éagóir ~ éagórach ‘unjust’ → éagóir ‘injustice’); abstract: beag ‘small’ → ‘little’, mór ‘big’ → ‘great, friendliness’, cf. deadjectival nouns éadrom ‘lightness’, olc ‘evil’, maith ‘good’

154. Irish

2803

and derived abstracts éadroime ‘lightness’, olcas ‘badness, evil’, maitheas ‘good’. Semantic restrictions are common, such as: a. person or creature: bodhar ‘deaf’ → ‘deaf person’, caoch ‘blind’ → ‘blind person’, cf. breac ‘speckled’ > ‘trout, fish’ (Ó Cearúil 1996: 389−392); b. plant-names: buí ‘yellow’ > buí mór ‘dyer’s rocket; lit. yellow big’; c. colour adjectives (although common colours have extended usage): dubh ‘black’ → ‘black, black substance, black ink, smut, evil deed, darkness’ (geal ‘white, bright’ → ‘bright(ness)’), bán ‘white’ → ‘white, lea’, gorm ‘blue’ → ‘blue, dyeing-blue’, dearg ‘red’ → ‘red, undersoil’, glas ‘green, grey’ → ‘green, grey material’, buí ‘yellow, brown’ → ‘yellow, yellow blight’; feminine nouns from colour adjectives refer to (names for) cows: buí ‘yellow cow’, dubh ‘black cow’, glas ‘grey cow’, dearg ‘red cow’; d. ordinal numerals used as fractions: ceithre ‘four’ → ceathrú (adjective and feminine noun) ‘fourth, quarter’. Syntagmatic or collocational restrictions are common: e. definite or plural: íseal ‘low’ → ‘lowly person, low place’ with preposition os íseal ‘in a low voice’, uasal ‘noble’ → ‘nobleman’, caomh ‘gentle’ → ‘companion’, beo ‘alive’ → ‘living being, life, livelihood’, bocht ‘poor’ → ‘poor (person)’, nocht ‘bare’ → ‘naked person’; f. qualified: ramhar ‘fat’ → ‘thick part’, leathan ‘broad’ → ‘broad part’, cúng ‘narrow’ → ‘narrow (part)’. The highest restriction is found in adjectives functioning syntactically as a noun (not strictly an instance of conversion): g. idiomatic crua ‘hard’ → ‘(being) hard (pressed)’, breá ‘fine’ → ‘beauty’, gránna ‘ugly’ → ‘plain person’, fiáin ‘wild’ → with preposition i bhfiáin ‘(being) wild; lit. in wild’, daibhir ‘poor’ → ‘poor person’ in collocation with saibhir ‘rich person’ (← adjective saibhir ‘rich’); idiomatic definite mion ‘small, tiny’ → ‘(the) small’ (s. v. mór2 Ó Dónaill 1978); h. idiomatic definite or qualified: bog ‘soft’ → ‘(the) soft, lobe’; or combinations of these conditions a.−h. In this treatment, deadjectival nominalisation via conversion is thus presented as a cline, none of which (apart from colours) is productive, however, as most adjectives do not convert to nouns nor function syntactically as nouns: fairsing ‘wide’, álainn ‘beautiful’, deas ‘nice’ vs. idiomatic in noun syntax deas deas (section 7). Derived adjectives are not converted except the important class in -ach: moing ‘mane, fen’ → mongach adjective ‘maned, marshy’ and noun ‘bush’ (cf. bacach ‘lame, beggar’ section 4.1.1 (7)). Similarly, lexical adverbs can be used nominally, generally in quite a limited fashion: faraor ‘alas’, arís ‘again’, amach ‘out’, amárach ‘tomorrow’ (Ó Curnáin 2007 s. v. aríst, amach; 1701). S e t p h r a s e s often contain (noun + noun (genitive) qualifier), (noun + preposition + noun) or (noun + adjective qualifier), less often (noun + adverb), (preposition + noun), (verb + complement), (adjective + preposition + noun), (adjective + relative copula), etc. Certain of these can also be presented in an often variable cline of univerbation, indicated morphosyntactically by their functioning as a unit with the article, adjectives, premodifiers and plural morphology. Examples: uisce faoi thalamh ‘water under ground’, figuratively ‘intrigue’ → droch-uisce-faoi-thalamh ‘bad intrigue’; cac ar aithris ‘mimickry, mimick; lit. excrement on imitation’ (de Bhaldraithe 1985: 38; Ó Curnáin 2007: 2210) → ag cac-ar-athris ar ‘mimicking’ (Uí Bheirn 1989 s. v. cac); cur i gcéill ‘pretence; lit. putting in sense’; líon tí (tí genitive singular ← teach ‘house’) ‘household; lit. (full-) number (of) house’ → plural líon-tíocha ‘households’ in contrast to tig/teach → plural tithe (cf. phrasal líon lán used adjectivally ‘full to the brim; lit. amount full’); dul i bhfolach ‘going in hiding’ → ‘hiding place’ (Nic Pháidín 1987: 56); beag de mhaith ‘useless object, hardship; lit. little of good’ (i.e. noun beag ← adjective, de ‘of’, noun maith ← adjective) → plural beag-de-mhaitheanna ‘hardships’ (Uí Bheirn 1989 s. v.

2804

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

beag1); mór le rá ‘significant; lit. big with/to say’ → daoine mór-le-rá (without inflection for plural (móra)) and mór is fiú ‘grandeur; lit. great which-is worth’ → an mór-isfiú ‘the grandeur’ and éirí in airde ‘uppishness; lit. rising in-above’. First element with links to finite verb: 2nd singular imperative ardaigh orm ‘free; lit. raise-2SG.IMP on-me’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 2187); (historical) 1st plural imperative buaileam sciath ‘braggadoccio; lit. (let us) strike shield’, 2nd singular imperative druid abhaile ‘move home’ → ar dhruid-abhaile ‘close at hand’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 656, cf. s. v. gort 2275). Nominals with plurals: i bhfastú ‘stuck’ (originally ‘in entanglement’) → vastú ‘entangling area’ → plural vastaíochaí; síneadh fada ‘length accent; lit. extension long’ → plural sínte fada ‘length accents’ (with regular noun plural followed by adjective, of type of adjective which does not inflect for plural) but also síneadh-fadachaí (with plural nominal suffix following adjective, indicating univerbation). The variant plurals of phrasal súil ribe ‘snare; lit. eye (of) hair’, can be analysed to evince three positions on the univerbation cline, from a. least to c. most unitary item: (4)

a. súilí ribe (plural suffix -í normal plural found with independent súil ‘eye’); b. súilte ribe (plural suffix -te not found with independent súil ‘eye’); c. súil-ribeachaí (pluralised as unitary phrase with -achaí suffix common with polysyllabic stems; note that there is no variant *súil-ribí in Ó Curnáin 2007: 689, 878 in contrast to independent plural variant ribí ‘hairs’ ← ribe).

There are also lexical phrasal items with unanalysable parts: ˈdamhán ˈˈalla ‘spider’ neither part of which is synchronically transparent; plural: historical (plural noun + adjective) ˈdamháin ˈˈalla and innovative ˈdamhán ˈˈallaí ~ ˈdamhán ˈˈallachaí. Noun suc ‘pet calf’ (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v.) can be interpreted as a conversion from interjection suc (call to calf), cf. derived sucaí ‘(child’s name for) calf’. Interjection leo-leoín ‘hushaby’ can be used nominally meaning ‘sleep’ (Dinneen s. v. leo-leo-ín). In West Co. Galway, English adjectives sorry and happy can be used as nouns in the important construction tá noun ar X “is noun on X” (where X is experiencer), i.e. X is/feels + adjective: tá sorry orm ‘I am sorry; lit. is sorry on-me’ along the lines of synonymous native tá aiféala orm with aiféala ‘regret, sorrow’.

5.2. Adjectival conversion Conversion from attributive genitive to adjectival use is rare: rud caca ‘worthless thing; lit. thing (of) excrement’ (← cac), thus adverbial go cac ‘badly’ and predicative is cac an scéal é ‘it is a wretched affair’ (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v. cac 7); seó ‘show, sport, profusion’ → (attributive) genitive seoigh, thus adverbial go seoigh ‘wonderfully’. Closed-class adverbs can function attributively: an fear amach ‘the man who goes, has gone, etc., out; lit. the man out’.

5.3. Verbal conversion Conversion typically involves placement of a stem in the 1st conjugation (monosyllabic stem) verbs: noun speal ‘scythe’ → speal ‘to mow’. 2nd conjugation verbs typically

154. Irish

2805

have polysyllabic stems, including the suffix -igh, thus adjective lag ‘weak’ → lag (1st conjugation) ~ lagaigh (2nd conjugation) ‘to weaken’; or adjective crua ‘hard’ → cruaigh ‘to harden’, present cruann (1st conjugation) ~ cruaíonn (2nd conjugation) ‘hardens’; but disyllabic éadrom ‘light’ → 2nd conjugation only: éadromaigh ‘to lighten’. In idiomatic or informal use, the closed class of locative adverbs of direction undergo conversion to quasi-verbs in reflexive conjunction with inflected preposition le ‘with’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 1176−1178; de Bhaldraithe 1953a: 69): siar ‘to the west’ (goal), siar libh ‘go west!; lit. west with-you (plural)’ but also → siaraigí libh (2nd plural imperative) ‘go west!’ and aniar ‘from the west’ (source) → aniaraidís leo (3rd plural imperative) ‘let them come from the west!’. As noted in section 4.1.1 regarding abstract derived nouns, the progressive particle ag can be placed before suitable nouns which thus function similar to (generally intransitive) verbal nouns but without a corresponding finite verb: magadh ‘ridicule’ → ag magadh ‘mocking’; amhrán ‘song’ → ag amhrán ‘singing’; báisteach ‘rain’ → ag báisteach ‘raining’; cantal ‘peevishness’ → ag cantal ‘complaining’ (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v.); braon ‘drop’ → plural braonachaí ‘drops’ → rarer ag braonachaí (báistí) ‘raining drops (of rain)’ (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v.); obair ‘work’ → ag obair ‘working’ (intransitive) corresponding to morphological verbal noun ag oibriú ‘working’ transitive and intransitive (← oibrigh ‘to work’); caint ‘speech’ → ag caint ‘speaking’ (including transitive ag caint Gaeilge ‘speaking Irish’), also verb caintigh (le) ‘to speak (to)’.

5.4. Adverbial conversion Adjectives can function relatively freely as adverbs without adverbial particle go: duine réasúnta ‘reasonable person’, labhair go réasúnta or labhair réasúnta ‘speak reasonably’, réasúnta deas ‘reasonably nice’. Adverbial use of temporal nouns and phrases is regular: thiteas lá ‘I fell one day; lit. I-fell (a) day’; cf. thiteas i-ndáil-le ‘I nearly fell; lit. I-fell close-to’.

6. Backformation Instances of backformation are non-systematic or sporadic occurrences of metanalysis; the process of deadjectival backformation producing a noun: ámharach ‘lucky’ and ámharaí(ocht) ‘good fortune’ (< ámhar ‘lucky’ < ádh ‘luck’) → ámhar ‘luck’ (in SouthWest Munster: Ó hÓgáin 1984: 107; Ó Buachalla 2003: 99; Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 2: 88, 107, 117); borrowing patraisc ‘partridge’ > dialectal pat(a)r uisce containing two lexemes, the latter being uisce ‘water’ as qualifier, similar to cearc uisce ‘waterhen; lit. hen of water’. In Ó Curnáin (2007: 636) a type of derivational metanalysis is found in abstract suffix -amas > action suffix -amáil: brocach ‘filthy’ → brocamas ‘filth’ → brocamáil ‘filthy activity’, besides rarer agglutinative -amasáil: brocamasáil ‘filthy activity’. Mention can also be made of variation in suffix order in -ach+án ~ -án+ach: sraoill ~ sraoilleachán ~ sraoilleánach (~ sraoilleamán) ‘ragged person’.

2806

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

7. Reduplication Reduplicative nominal compounds and phrases are common, generally informal and often disparaging: a. actual words deas deas ‘finishing touch’ (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v.), breá breá ‘toy, finery’; b. non-words neaim neaim ‘tasty portion’ (← interjection neaim ‘yum’), hulach halach ‘commotion’, húirte háirte (plural noun) ‘hubbub’, hibile haibile ‘slovenly person’, niúide neáide ‘namby-pamby’, súm sám ‘listless person’, tromach tramach (noun) ‘pell-mell’; c. combination of words and non-words, conjunctions, etc., driúilíní driongal ‘formication’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 2248); scéal, duan ná duainicín ‘(no) news of any kind; lit. story, poem or little poem’; hob ná hé ‘(no) move’, smig ná smeaig ‘(no) strength’; (thit) an drioll ar an dreall (aige) ‘he lost courage; lit. (fell) ... on the ... (at-him)’. A rare instance of verbal adjective derivation is steig meig ‘(no) strength’ → steig-meigeáilte ‘exhausted’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 2344).

8. Blending Although systematic blending, on a par with English culturally innovative coinages such as breakfast + lunch → brunch, is not found in traditional Irish, formal and semantic analogy can produce words similar to the more systematic combinations encountered in blending. Forms such as standard ceirín ‘poultice’, ciméar ‘chimera’ and cithréim ‘deformity’ show mutual influence producing dialectal by-forms, basically meaning ‘deformity’: ceirthín ~ ceirthím ~ ceirthéim ~ cirthéim ~ crithéim ~ cimir ~ cimear ~ ciméar ~ cimthéar (e.g., ceirthím with -ei-í- < ceirín but -th-m < cithréim; Ó Curnáin 2007: 279−280). Similarly, interdialectalisms from synonymous by-forms: ramharc ‘sight’ < synonyms radharc and amharc ‘sight’ (Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 1: 127); or brúigh ‘win’ < synonyms buach and gnóthaigh ‘win’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 62, 255, 1170−1171). The borrowing bagún ‘bacon’ is commonly magún (Wagner 1958−69: question 109) influenced by m- of native muic+fheoil ‘pork’ ← muic ‘pig’ + feoil ‘meat’. In post-traditional Irish, functional semantic reduction, common in reduced or attrited acquisition, is evidenced by amalgamation of iarr ‘to request’ and fiafraigh ‘to enquire’ → fiar ‘to ask’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 1169). A recent coinage Gaerla ‘mixed Irish and English’ ← Gaeilge ‘Irish’ and Béarla ‘English’ is based on the model of such terms as franglais ← français ‘French’ and anglais ‘English’. In fact, blends and dvandva compounds, quite common in English, are notoriously challenging to render in Irish.

9. Clipping Clipping is not a productive process; a rather sporadic instance is ribe róibéis ‘shrimp’ → bróibéis ‘shrimps’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 275, 2206). Abbreviation or phonological reduction of functors, including conjunctions, is common (Ó Curnáin 2007: 1558) and often involves pretonic elision (Ó Siadhail 1989: 23−24): i riocht is go ‘so that; lit. in state and that’ → ros go ‘so that’; thus actually involving coalescence of words and wordcreation. Initial abbreviation often involves pretonic reduction or elision as in native

154. Irish

2807

syllable loss through stress shift typical in Munster: ˈcorrán ‘sickle’ > co'rrán > 'crán. This is common in English borrowings: America > Meirice ~ Meiriceá; asylum > saighleam ‘madness’, dispensary > spionsaraí (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v.); sacristy > croistí (Uí Bheirn 1989 s. v.); cf. sanatorium ~ san > sain (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v.). Acronyms are mostly borrowed from English in dialect use: an t-IRA ‘the I.R.A.’; an tRUC ‘the R.U.C’. Raidió na Gaeltachta ‘Radio of-the Gaeltacht’ (radio station of Irish-speaking areas) is abbreviated as R na G in recent usage, with letter names, pronounced following English pronunciation, joined by retention of the definite article. The plural of an organisation can stand for members of that organisation, including acronyms: IRA’s ‘I.R.Amen’.

10. Word-creation Not all phenomena discussed briefly in this section, e.g., semantic splits, are wordcreations, i.e. artificial formations outside the system of word-formation, as defined in this handbook. They are, nevertheless, noteworthy in this context. Preposing of s-, with disparaging associations, is common: liobar ‘limp object’ > sliobar ‘limp object’, maiste ‘spill, twist’ > smaiste ‘spill, twist, straggling object’, meach ‘bee’ > synonym smeach, compare adjective cromán+ach ‘(large-)hipped’ (← cromán ‘hip’) with scrom+ánach ‘tall stooped person’ (< crom ‘stooped’) (de Bhaldraithe 1953b s. v.), sclutaíthe ‘starving’ (< gluta ‘maw’) (Ó Curnáin 2007: 258; cf. l- > pl- in “expressive clusters”, Ó Siadhail 1989: 104, leota ‘strip, sluggish person’, pleota ‘strip, fool’, sleota ‘strip’, de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v.). There is also a use of s, often prolonged, as an interjection of incitement or expulsion (de Bhaldraithe 1985 s. v. s-; Ó Curnáin 2007: 2320). Univerbation of original phrases, such as beag-de-mhaitheanna ‘hardships’, is discussed in section 5.1; a further instance is verbal gabh i ˈleith ‘come hither; lit. come in hither’ which has a univerbised by-form in West Co. Galway ˈgoille ‘come here’, with 2nd plural imperative gabhaigí i ˈleith ~ ˈgoilligí ‘come here’. Similarly, phrasal go ˈleith ‘and a half; lit. with half’ yields the adjective 'guile ‘and a half’ in much of Munster (optionally in Co. Waterford and not at all in Co. Clare: question 118 in Wagner 1958−69 Vol. 2). Divergence of diachronic (morpho)phonological developments can bring about dialectal semantic splits: adhbhar ‘matter, cause’ > abhar ‘cause’ and ábhar ‘amount’ (Ó Cuív 1944: 113; Ó hÓgáin 1984: 10−11; Breatnach 1961: 2; also Ua Súilleabháin 1994: 491); noteworthy in Ulster (see section 2.3) aon ‘one’ > aon ‘only’ vs. an ‘any’; corr ‘point’, ‘pointed’ > corr (higher vowel) ‘edge’ vs. corr (lower vowel) ‘odd’; fo ~ fa ~ fá ‘under, about’ > faoi ‘under’ vs. fá ‘round, about’; ro- ‘most’ > ró- ‘too’ vs. ro- ‘much’; deichniúr ‘ten persons’ > deichniúr ‘decade’ vs. deichear ‘ten’; borrowing cupla ‘few’ vs. cúpla ‘twins’; including variation of coalescence in compounds: seanduine ‘old person’ > ˈseanˌduine ‘old person’ vs. ˈseannaine ‘old man’ (Ó Searcaigh 1923: 153; Wagner 1959: 26; Sommerfelt 1965: 303, 305−306; Ó Baoill 1996: 124−148; cupla vs. cúpla also in Connacht: Ó Curnáin 2007: 88). Metanalysis is important diachronically and synchronically in a process of degrammaticalising certain suffixes which thus develop towards more independent word status. This occurs with regards to suffixes in demonstrative and pronominal categories, analysable in a cline from the emphatic stressing (see section 2.3) of normally unstressed

2808

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

suffixes through conjunct words to independent words: mo 'thigse ~ mo 'thig'se ~ mo 'thig'seo all three meaning emphasised ‘my house’, the latter resembling demonstrative adjective structure an 'tig seo ‘this house’ (Ó Sé 2000: 381−386, 376−377). Because of canonical verb-subject word order, synthetic 3rd plural past bhío+dar ‘they were; lit. were+3PL’ can be metanalysed as analytic bhí dur ‘they were’ thus developing innovative 3rd plural conjunct pronoun dur: bheadh dur ‘they would’ for historical synthetic bheidís ‘they would’ or established analytic bheadh siad ‘they would’ (Ó Curnáin 2007: 899− 901, 1235−1249).

Acknowledgement I would like to thank Gareth O’Neill and Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh for their helpful corrections and suggestions.

11. References An Caighdeán Oifigiúil 1958 Gramadach na Gaeilge agus Litriú na Gaeilge. An Caighdeán Oifigiúil. Dublin: Oifig an tSoláthair. An Coiste Téarmaíochta 2010 http://www.gaeilge.ie/Tearmai_&_Aistruchain/Treoirlinte.asp [Last access 10 June 2012]. Armstrong, John 1981 Vowel equivalences in Classical Modern Irish rime: Modern and medieval analyses compared. In: Calvin Watkins (ed.), Indo-European Studies 4, 613−724. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University. Breatnach, Risteard B. 1947 The Irish of Ring, Co. Waterford. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Breatnach, Risteard B. (ed.) 1961 Seana-Chaint na nDéise II. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. de Bhaldraithe, Tomás 1953a Gaeilge Chois Fhairrge. An Deilbhíocht. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. de Bhaldraithe, Tomás 1953b Ainmneacha ar Chineálacha Daoine. Béaloideas 22: 120−153. de Bhaldraithe, Tomás 1959 English-Irish Dictionary. Dublin: An Gúm. de Bhaldraithe, Tomás 1985 Foirisiún focal as Gaillimh. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. de Bhaldraithe, Tomás 1990 Notes on the diminutive suffix -ín in Modern Irish. In: Ann T. E. Matonis and Daniel F. Melia (eds.), Celtic Language, Celtic Culture. A Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp, 85−95. California: Ford & Bailie. Dinneen, Patrick S. 1911 Foclóir Gaedhilge agus Béarla. Dublin: Irish Texts Society. Doyle, Aidan 1992 Noun Derivation in Modern Irish. Selected Categories, Rules and Suffixes. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.

154. Irish

2809

Doyle, Aidan and Edmund Gussmann 1996 A Reverse Dictionary of Modern Irish. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Folium. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991 Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Greene, David 1966 The Irish Language. An Ghaeilge. Dublin: The Three Candles. Hussey, Matt 1999 Nod don Eolach. Gasaitéar Eolaíochta. Dublin: An Gúm. Lenoach, Ciarán, Conchúr Ó Giollagáin and Brian Ó Curnáin (eds.) 2012 An Chonair Chaoch. An Mionteangachas sa Dátheangachas. Indreabhán, Co. na Gaillimhe: Leabhar Breac. McCone, Kim, Damian McManus, Cathal Ó Háinle, Nicholas Williams and Liam Breatnach (eds.) 1994 Stair na Gaeilge. Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, Saint Patrick’s College, Maynooth. McKenna-Lawlor, Susan and Damien Ó Muirí 2010 An English-Irish Lexicon of Scientific and Technical Space-related Terminology. Dublin: Four Courts Press. McManus, Damian 1994 An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach. In: Kim McCone, Damian McManus, Cathal Ó Háinle, Nicholas Williams and Liam Breatnach (eds.), Stair na Gaeilge, 335−445. Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, Saint Patrick’s College, Maynooth. Mhac an Fhailigh, Éamonn 1968 The Irish of Erris, Co. Mayo. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Ní Dhomhnaill, Cáit 1988 Dúblóga uamacha Gaeilge. Béaloideas 56: 141−152. Nic Pháidín, Caoilfhionn 1987 Cnuasach Focal ó Uíbh Ráthach. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Nic Pháidín, Caoilfhionn 2008 Corpus planning for Irish. In: Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín and Seán Ó Cearnaigh (eds.), A New View of the Irish Language, 93−107. Dublin: Cois Life. Ó Baoill, Dónall 1996 An Teanga Bheo. Gaeilge Uladh. Dublin: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann. Ó Cearúil, Micheál 1996 Sa teanga atá tábhacht na teanga. In: Micheál Ó Cearúil (ed.), Gníomhartha na mBráithre. Aistí Comórtha ar Ghaelachas na mBráithre Críostaí, 389−460. Dublin: Coiscéim. Ó Cuív, Brian 1944 The Irish of West Muskerry, Co. Cork. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Ó Cuív, Brian (ed.) 1947 Cnósach Focal ó Bhaile Bhúirne. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Ó Curnáin, Brian 2007 The Irish of Iorras Aithneach, County Galway. 4 Vol. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Ó Curnáin, Brian 2012 An Ghaeilge iarthraidisiúnta agus an phragmataic chódmheasctha thiar agus theas. In: Ciarán Lenoach, Conchúr Ó Giollagáin and Brian Ó Curnáin (eds.), An Chonair Chaoch. An Mionteangachas sa Dátheangachas, 284−364. Indreabhán, Co. na Gaillimhe: Leabhar Breac. Ó Dónaill, Niall 1978 [1977] Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla. Dublin: Oifig an tSoláthair. Ó Giollagáin, Conchúr, Seosamh Mac Donnacha, Fiona Ní Chualáin, Aoife Ní Shéaghdha and Mary O’Brien 2007 Staidéar Cuimsitheach Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht. Tuarascáil Chríochnaitheach. Dublin: Oifig an tSoláthair.

2810

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Celtic

Ó Giollagáin, Conchúr and Seosamh Mac Donncha 2008 The Gaeltacht today. In: Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín and Seán Ó Cearnaigh (eds.), A New View of the Irish Language, 108−120. Dublin: Cois Life. Ó hAirt, Diarmaid 1988 Díolaim Dhéiseach. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Ó hAnluain, L. A. 1999 Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí. 3rd ed. Dublin: An Gúm. Ó hÓgáin, Éamonn 1984 Díolaim Focal (A) ó Chorca Dhuibhne. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Ó hÚrdail, Roibeárd 1995 A native bound-morpheme combines with fully nativised borrowed morphemes: A highly productive language-contact feature in the Irish of Cape Clear. Teanga 15: 71−80. O’Rahilly, Thomas F. 1972 [1932] Irish Dialects Past and Present. With Chapters on Scottish and Manx. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Ó Sé, Diarmuid 2000 Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne. Dublin: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann. Ó Searcaigh, Séamus 1925 Foghraidheacht Ghaedhilge an Tuaiscirt. Belfast: Brún agus Ó Nualláin, Teor. Ó Siadhail, Mícheál 1989 Modern Irish. Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Péterváry, Tamás, Brian Ó Curnáin, Conchúr Ó Giollagáin and Jerome Sheahan 2014 Iniúchadh ar an gCumas Dátheangach. An sealbhú teanga i measc ghlúin óg na Gaeltachta. Analysis of Bilingual Competence. Language acquisition among young people in the Gaeltacht. Dublin: An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta. Quiggin, E. C. 1906 A Dialect of Donegal. Being the Speech of Mweenawania in the Parish of Glenties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sommerfelt, Alf 1922 The Dialect of Torr, Co. Donegal. Vol. 1: Phonology. Christiana: Dybwad. Sommerfelt, Alf 1965 Word limits in Modern Irish (dialect of Torr, Co. Donegal). Lochlann 3: 298−314. Ua Súilleabháin, Seán 1994 Gaeilge na Mumhan. In: Kim McCone, Damian McManus, Cathal Ó Háinle, Nicholas Williams and Liam Breatnach (eds.), Stair na Gaeilge, 479−538. Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, Saint Patrick’s College, Maynooth. Uí Bheirn, Úna M. 1989 Cnuasach Focal as Teileann. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Uí Bhraonáin, Donla and Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín (eds.) 2004 Foclóir Fiontar / Dictionary of Terminology. Gaeilge-Béarla / English-Irish. Dublin: Fiontar, Dublin City University. Wagner, Heinrich 1958−69 Linguistic Atlas and Survey of Irish Dialects. Vol. 1: Introduction, 300 maps. 1958. Vol. 2: The dialects of Munster. 1964. Vol. 3: The dialects of Connaught. 1966. Vol. 4: The dialects of Ulster and the Isle of Man; specimens of Scottish Gaelic dialects; phonetic texts of East Ulster Irish. 1969. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Wagner, Heinrich 1959 Gaeilge Theilinn. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Brian Ó Curnáin, Dublin (Ireland)

Slavic 155. Upper Sorbian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Reduplication Blending Clipping References

Abstract This article gives an overview of the major word-formation processes in Upper Sorbian. In addition the main trends in the word-formation of written Upper Sorbian since the mid 19 th century are briefly outlined. However, they are not free from the century-old language contact with German. Most productive are derivation and compounding. Reduplication or blending are of minor importance, examples of backformation and wordcreation are not attested.

1. Introduction Sorbian belongs to the West-Slavic language family. The term Sorbian refers to all Upper and Lower Sorbian dialects, including transitional dialects as well as the written Upper and Lower Sorbian languages. Upper Sorbian is spoken in Upper Lusatia (with its center in Bautzen/Saxonia), Lower Sorbian in Lower Lusatia (Cottbus/Brandenburg). The current number of speakers amounts to approximately 25–30,000 Sorbians; all speakers are bilingual (Sorbian and German). Sorbian is an officially recognised minority language of Europe. Due to various historical socio-political, economic and confessional developments, two areas reflecting different levels of language maintenance are currently distinguished. As such we distinguish between a heartland (the so-called Catholic region in the triangle Hoyerswerda-Bautzen-Kamenz) and a German dominated region (the other parts of Upper and all parts of Lower Lusatia). Both written Sorbian languages use a Latin alphabet, supplemented by diacritics. The earliest extant linguistic evidence for Sorbian derives from the 16th century (for further details on the socio-linguistic situation of Sorbian, see Spieß 2002, Lewaszkiewicz 2002). Word-formation in Upper and Lower Sorbian has so far not been systematically presented. Related literature has merely dealt with singular aspects of it, partly as phenomena of denomination.

2812

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

For Upper Sorbian, some observations regarding word-formation were already documented in its earliest grammars, for instance, in that by Johann Peter Jordan (1841). Jordan is the first Sorbian grammarian to undertake a description of Upper Sorbian wordformation systematically, relying on works by Dobrovský (1819) and Hanka (1822) and their models of description. Consequently, so-called formation-syllables (G. Bildungssilben) are listed in alphabetical order with no relation to the semantics of these derivatives (or their etymology). Thus, there is no exact terminology employed or a scientific method to define the “formation-syllables”. This, by necessity, leads to various miscomprehensions (cf. Wölke 2005: 88). Since the early decades of the 20th century, some surveys have been published, in which primarily productive and unproductive derivational suffixes linked to semantic classes and derivational bases have been presented, for instance, in the works by Krječmar (1954), Jakubaš (1956), and Michałk (1974). Newer word-formation models, which have emerged since the end of the 20th century due to general trends, like liberalisation and internationalisation, are found in Sorbian, too. They are discussed by Wölkowa (2006) and Pohončowa (2009). The formation of verbs through affixation is the focus of an analysis by Werner (2003). As part of their studies on interference phenomena resulting from German-Sorbian language contact, both Giger (1999) and Bayer (2006) investigate borrowings and calques of German particle verbs. Brankačkec (2009) compares these verbs in older Upper Sorbian with their counterparts in present-day Upper Sorbian. In comparison to derivation, compounding has only been marginally discussed in Sorbian studies to date, amongst others by Krječmar (1954), Jenč (1963) and Wornar (2001). Scholze (2008), among others, provides numerous examples documenting the existence of nominal and verbal hybrid compounds in Upper Sorbian colloquial language. For Lower Sorbian, Gotthold Schwela (1906) provided the first brief introduction to word-formation; however, he limited himself to derivation, and in the area of nominal derivation to a mere listing of suffixes. A more detailed overview of the most important word-formation processes in Lower Sorbian is given by Starosta (1992: 222−246). Special phenomena of Sorbian word-formation, in particular in the field of derivation, are investigated by Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish Slavists, for example, Michajlov (1959), Kovalyk (Kovalik) (1963, 1964, 1967), Wróbel (1969) and Tkačenko (1970). In the context of Sorbian botanical terminology, Adamenko (1999) also discusses structural aspects of word-formation. Lewaszkiewicz (1988) extensively covers place nouns in Upper Sorbian. Kreja (1999, 2004) analyses the formation of nouns denoting female persons; Milewska-Stawiany (2011a, 2012) treats the structure and function of diminutives and augmentatives. At seminars in Gdańsk in 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2012, various aspects of Sorbian word-formation were discussed. Some of the lectures were published in Lětopis (2003(2), 2004(1), 2006(1)) and in Kleine Reihe des Sorbischen Instituts (cf. Milewska-Stawiany and Wölkowa 2008, 2013). However, until today, the language of individuals has been the subject of only few studies: Stachowski (1967, 1968), for instance, compares nominal derivatives used in the lexicographic compendium De originibus linguae Sorabicae by Abraham Frencel (1693–1696) with those common in contemporary Upper Sorbian. Małgorzata MilewskaStawiany (2009) analyses the diminutives of the same work. Diminutives are also in the focus of her essays on Vocabularium latino-serbicum by Jurij Hawštyn Swětlik (1721)

155. Upper Sorbian

2813

and on the works of the Sorbian poet Jakub Bart-Ćišinski (Milewska-Stawiany 2010, 2011b). There is a reverse dictionary for both Lower and Upper Sorbian (Kłos, Rzymska and Siatkowska 1988; Meškank 2001). The first one is based on the comprehensive GermanLower Sorbian dictionary by Mucke (1911–27), the latter on the Upper Sorbian-German dictionary by Völkel (1981). A large number of English-Upper Sorbian hybrid compounds of the type joggingwoblek ‘jogging suit’ were included in the Deutsch-obersorbisches Wörterbuch neuer Lexik [German-Upper Sorbian Dictionary of Neologisms] (Jentsch, Pohontsch and Schulz 2006). A number of Lower Sorbian neologisms are lexicographically documented in the Internet version of the German-Lower Sorbian dictionary (www.niedersorbisch.de/dnw). Due to the general status of research, which is more precarious for Lower Sorbian than for Upper Sorbian, the author places emphasis on Upper Sorbian.

2. General overview In the current Upper Sorbian standard language, the mechanisms of word-formation feature ones which are also typical of other Slavic Languages, the most important of which being derivation and compounding. Clipping and conversion also occur, whereas blending and reduplication are only sporadically used. The modern Upper Sorbian standard language developed in the 1840s in the context of the national “rebirth” and as a result of overcoming the differentiation into Protestant and Catholic standard language variants based on different dialects. This brought about a strengthening of its Slavic properties. As a result, a number of German loanwords, hybrid compounds with initial German constituents and compounds with genitive inflection on the first constituent were substituted by indigenous new formations or other Slavicisms (conforming to customary Sorbian affixes) and with nominal compounds with the linking vowel -o- (cf. Jentsch 1999: 179−202). Due to the specific linguistic situation of Upper Sorbian as a minority language, the limited development of its written language and − compared to German − its limited use in social domains, the formation of new denotations is currently often the result of impulses from its contact language German. Therefore current word-formation is frequently rather the mere search for equivalents of German words, which are mostly compounds. As a result, there has been an increase in Upper Sorbian compounds − excluding copulative ones. In Upper Sorbian, nominal, adjectival, and verbal compounds are frequent with nominal and adjectival compounds being particularly productive. Adapting German compounds, Upper Sorbian employs various word-formation and denomination models (cf., among others, Siatkowska 1989). In addition to derivation (disket-nik ‘disk drive’) and compounding (pomnik-o-škit ‘monument protection’), multiword expressions of various structure, e.g., adjective + noun (datowa banka ‘database’), noun + noun-GEN (cyklus čitanjow ‘lecture series’), and prepositional noun phrases (zawěsćenje za rentu ‘pension insurance’) are predominantly used. Although the number of new derivatives is in decline compared to compounds, derivation remains a productive word-formation model. Some suffixes are multi-functional. For example, both deverbal agent nouns and instrument nouns are formed by the suffix

2814

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

-ak, e.g., čušlak ‘spy, snitcher; someone who spies on others’ (← čušlić ‘to nose around’), česak ‘comb’ (← česać ‘to comb’). Under German influence, further particularities have developed in Upper Sorbian word-formation. For example, the formation of particle verbs affects the grammatical system because they are partly in competition with the derivation of imperfective verbs by suffixation. Though this word-formation type has gradually been removed from the Upper Sorbian standard language since the middle of the 19 th century and partly substituted by other verbal compounds or verbs with a “synonymous” prefix, it has still spreading currency in the colloquial language, cf. written Upper Sorbian roznošować ‘to deliver, distribute’ and colloquial rózno nosyć lit. ‘to apart-carry (distributive meaning)’. German influence has also triggered the development of hybrid compounds with a borrowed first constituent (e.g., šlofstwa ‘bedroom’, G. Schlafzimmer; hawptměsto ‘capital’, G. Hauptstadt) and compounds with the first constituent in the genitive (type bohabojaznosć ‘piousness’, G. Gottesfürchtigkeit). Since 1840, due to purist linguistic trends in the written standard language, most of these compounds have been replaced by nominal ones with the linking vowel -o- or by multi-word expressions of various structures (šlofstwa > spanska (stwa) ‘bedroom; lit. sleeping (room)’, hawptměsto > stolica (as in other Slavic languages) or hłowne město ‘capital’). Based on the German model, compounds of the type kofejwarjenje ‘coffee brewing’ (G. Kaffeekochen) are also found. Since the 17th century, the vocabulary of the Upper Sorbian standard language has been expanded through numerous internationalisms of Latin, Greek, or French provenance. As a rule, the neoclassical formatives in Sorbian are not independent formations but adapted loanwords that have made their way from German into Sorbian (e.g., Psychologie > psychologija ‘psychology’, Philosophie > filozofija ‘philosophy’, Telefon > telefon ‘telephone’). In the past decades, English has played an increasing role, cf. loanwords such as kompjuter ‘computer’, joggować ‘to jog’, fairny ‘fair’. Since the mid-1990s, the number of hybrid compounds featuring a first constituent of English origin has risen. These words are particularly used by younger speakers of Sorbian and have already established themselves in their written language (Wölkowa 2006). Both anglicisms and other internationalisms can form the basis of derivatives (e.g., filmowc ‘film maker’, ombudnica ‘ombudswoman’, industrijnišćo ‘industrial location’, kopěrowak ‘copy machine’), or they occur in compounds (e.g., onlinedźěło ‘online work’).

3. Composition 3.1. Nominal compounds One of the most productive word-formation types in present-day Upper Sorbian are nominal compounds. Nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, numerals and abbreviations or acronyms form their first constituent. Word-formations based on compounding are modeled on syntactic constructs or combine word stems, they can be formed according to existing patterns or they are loan translations from German.

155. Upper Sorbian

2815

3.1.1. Determinative compounds In determinative N+N compounds, the first constituent (followed by a linking vowel, mostly -o-) determines the second one, e.g., wohnjoškit ‘fire protection’, mašinotwarstwo ‘engineering; lit. machine building’, fachowěda ‘specialist knowledge’. These compounds are based on various syntactic structures: the second component presents a simplex or a derivative (mostly deverbal nouns), e.g., mašinotwarstwo ‘engineering’ (← twarstwo mašinow lit. ‘building engines-GEN’), fachowěda (← fachowa wěda lit. ‘discipline-REL.ADJ knowledge’), štomowěda ‘dendrology’ (← wěda wo štomach lit. ‘knowledge about trees’), wohnjoškit (← škit před wohenjom ‘protection from fire’). The second constituent can also be a deverbal derivative that does not exist as an independent word, e.g., šruboćahak ‘screwdriver’ (← šrub ‘screw’ + *ćahak ← ćahać ‘to pull, drive’) or wodowód ‘water pipe’, whose deverbal second component is formed by zerosuffixation (← woda ‘water’ + *wód ‘pipe’ ← wodźić ‘to conduit, lead, guide’). The latter type has spread in Upper Sorbian since the 19 th century and is most likely a result of Czech influence. There are only a few N+N compounds with a simplex noun as the second component, e.g., zmijohad ‘viper; lit. dragon-snake’. In determinative A+N compounds, a property of the object denoted in the second constituent is characterised by the adjectival first component, e.g., wulkoakcija ‘major campaign’, małobyrgar ‘petit bourgeois’, wysokodom ‘high-rise building; lit. high house’, krótkopowědančko ‘short story’. Verb roots as first constituents (V+N) are only found sporadically, e.g., chwalospěw ‘hymn of praise; lit. praise hymn’, spalomotor ‘combustion engine; lit. combust engine’. Apart from the so-called o-compounds, there are numerous compounds without a linking vowel. Here, the case marker of the first constituent (accusative sg. or pl.) takes on the function of the linking element, e.g., knihikupc ‘bookseller; lit. book-ACC.PLbuyer’, dawkipłaćer ‘taxpayer; lit. tax-ACC.PL-payer’, bajkipowědar ‘teller of fairy tales; lit. fairy tale-ACC.PL-teller’, prochsrěbak ‘vacuum cleaner; lit. dust-sucker’, dźěłodawar ‘employer; lit. work-giver’. These compounds are based on syntagms in which the first constituent is the object of the action (knihi kupić ‘to buy books’, dawki płaćić ‘to pay taxes’, proch srěbać ‘to vacuum; lit. dust suck’ (G. Staub saugen), dźěło dawać ‘to employ; lit. work give’ (G. Arbeit geben), bajki powědać ‘to tell fairy tales’). They feature a similar structure as the compounds of the type kofejwarjenje ‘coffee-boiling’, based on the syntagm kofej warić ‘to make coffee; lit. coffee cook’ (G. Kaffee kochen). Since 1840, this type of compounding has mostly been replaced by nominal compounds featuring genitive inflection (pl. or sg.) in the first constituent (knihowkupc ‘bookseller; lit. book-GEN.PL-buyer’, mandźelstwałamar ‘adulterer; lit. matrimony-GEN-breaker’, etc.); it is still occasionally found today (wěrywuznaće ‘confession of faith; lit. faithGEN-confession’ (G. Glaubensbekenntnis), rěčewěda ‘linguistic science; lit. languageGEN-knowledge’, zemjerženje ‘earthquake; lit. earth-GEN-trembling’). These and other compounds such as ryćerkubło ‘manor; lit. knight-property’ (G. Rittergut), domapytanje ‘plague, visitation’ (G. Heimsuchung), do-prašenja-stajenje ‘challenge; lit. into-questionputting’ (G. Infragestellen), are loan translations based on the German model. Nominal compounds with an adverb (Adv+N) or pronoun (Pron+N) as first constituent are also productive (the second constituents are mostly action nouns), e.g., dalekubłanje ‘further-ADV education’, hromadźezwjedźenje ‘joining together; lit. together-

2816

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

joining’, nimopochodowanje ‘marching by; lit. by-marching’, sobujězdźer ‘passenger; lit. co-driver’, znowawobdźěłanje ‘revised edition; lit. anew revision’. Numerals also appear as first constituents (Num+N), e.g., druhoćišć ‘second edition’, pjećibój ‘pentathlon; lit. five-GEN contest’, stonóžka ‘centipede; lit. hundred-leg-DIM’, an exocentric compound. Typical for the colloquial language are nominal hybrid compounds with their first stem originating from German (e.g., šlofstwa ‘bedroom’; cf. section 2). Since the 1990s, hybrid compounds with anglicisms or internationalisms as their first stem (and without a linking vowel) have been increasingly used, primarily by younger speakers of Sorbian, e.g., babylěto ‘(paid) maternity leave; lit. baby year’, joggingwoblek ‘jogging suit’ (in written standard, however: babyjowe lěto, joggingowy woblek, i.e. relational adjective + noun). Only few compounds of this kind have established themselves in the standard language, e.g., šeflěkar ‘chief physician’ (G. Chefarzt), bruttomzda ‘gross salary’ (G. Bruttolohn). Compounds with two foreign constituents (mostly having as their second component a borrowing which also exists independently in Sorbian) may have been borrowed as a whole word, e.g., galaprogram (gala + program) ‘gala programme’ (G. Galaprogramm), šefredaktor (šef + redaktor) ‘editor in chief; lit. chief-editor’ (G. Chefredakteur). In the standard and colloquial language, compounds with clipped or abbreviated words of foreign origin (including neoclassical word-formations) are common with nearly no limitation, e.g., ABM-městno ‘ABM job’ (ABM is the abbreviation of G. Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme ‘job-creation measure’), BMX-koleso ‘BMX bicycle’, e-hudźba ‘E-music’, biowobchod ‘wholefood store; lit. bio-shop’ (G. Bioladen), ekodawk ‘ecotax’, infodźeń ‘info day’.

3.1.2. Copulative compounds There are only few copulative compounds; their constituents are often linked by -o-, e.g., sewjerowuchod ‘northeast’, syčomłóćawa ‘combine harvester; lit. reaper-thresher’. This compound is the result of the reduction of the o-compound syčawomłóćawa, composed of two deverbal nouns (syčawa ‘reaper’ ← syc ‘to reap’ and młóćawa ‘threshing machine; lit. tresh-er’ ← młóćić ‘to thresh’). Only with the type moler-spisowaćel ‘painter and novelist’ (analogous formations are mostly used by individual authors) and toponyms like Bosniska-Hercegowina ‘BosniaHerzegovina’ both constituents are declined in Sorbian. With regard to dvandvas, Sorbian only presents toponyms such as Schleswigsko-Holsteinska ‘Schleswig-Holstein’.

3.2. Adjectival compounds 3.2.1. Determinative compounds Adjectival determinative compounds with a noun or adjective as modifying first component are predominantly linked by -o-, e.g., N+A: swětosławny ‘world-famous’, kralo-

155. Upper Sorbian

2817

swěrny ‘royalist; lit. king-true’; A+A: jasnomódry ‘light blue’, zelenomódry ‘greenish blue’, staroruski ‘Old Russian’, delnjoserbski ‘Lower Sorbian’. N+A compounds without the linking vowel are also found, e.g., kamjeńtwjerdy ‘adamant; lit. rock-hard’, krejlačny ‘bloodthirsty’ and krejelačny ‘id.; lit. blood-GEN-thirsty’. Most of these compounds are modelled on a comparison, e.g., morjomódry ‘sea-blue’ ← módry kaž morjo ‘blue like the sea’. Many of them have their origin in loan translations from German, e.g., jědzeleny ‘bright green; lit. poison-green’ (G. giftgrün). Other compounds (with or without the linking vowel) are motivated by syntactic phrases, e.g., swětosławny ‘world-famous’ ← sławny po cyłym swěće ‘famous in the whole world’, prawdźepodobny ‘probable; lit. truth-DAT-similiar’ ← podobny prawdźe ‘similiar to the truth’. A number of adjectival A+N compounds with proper or denominal adjectives as their first constituents was created from syntactic groups by compounding and suffixation making use of the linking vowel -o-, e.g., mały kaliber ‘small bore’ → małokaliberski, krótka doba ‘a short period of time’ → krótkodobny ‘short-term’, sudniska medicina ‘forensic medicine’ → sudniskomedicinski, Hornja Łužica ‘Upper Lusatia’ → hornjołužiski. If the first constituent is an adverb, a preposition or a noun, compounds with or without the linking vowel are formed, e.g., znutřka Serbow ‘among the Sorbs’ → znutřkoserbski ‘inner-Sorbian’, zwonka šule ‘out of school’ → zwonkašulski ‘out-of-school’, dźěło wobstarać ‘to supply work’ → dźěłowobstaranski ‘labour supply (adj.)’. These adjectives are often part of multi-word expressions as equivalents of German nominal compounds or multi-word terms, e.g., małokaliberska bróń ‘small bore rifle’ (G. Kleinkaliberwaffe), sudniskomediciniske přepytowanje ‘forensic tests; lit. forensic medical investigation’ (G. gerichtsmedizinische Untersuchung), znutřkoserbski konflikt ‘innerSorbian conflict’, dźěłowobstaranska naprawa ‘job-creation measure’ (G. Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme). In this function, adjectival o-compounds form a very productive word-formation type. The modifying first constituent can also be a numeral, e.g., dwuposchodowy (← dwaj poschodaj ‘two storeys’) dom ‘two-storey house’, or a pronoun, e.g., našočasna (← naš čas ‘our time’) moda ‘present fashion’. Adjectival compounds which take the words kmany ‘able’, połny ‘full’, hódny ‘worthy’ as their second component, normally have nouns in the genitive (-a) as their first constituent, e.g., teamakmany ‘able to work in a team; lit. team-GEN-able’ (G. teamfähig), zmysłapołny ‘sensible; lit. sense-GEN-full’ (G. sinnvoll), spěchowanjahódny ‘worthy of promotion; lit. promotion-GEN-worthy’ (G. förderungswürdig). Only with a few compounds which have kmany as their second constituent, is the formation of an o-compound also possible, e.g., dźěłakmany lit. ‘work-GEN-able’ and dźěłokmany ‘able to work; lit. work-able’, however only wólbokmany (with -o-) ‘entitled to vote; lit. vote-able’.

3.2.2. Copulative compounds Adjectival copulative compounds usually serve the description of group associations (słowjansko-němske poćahi ‘Slavic-German relations’, serbsko-němska dwurěčnosć ‘Sorbian-German bilingualism’), the designation of colour combinations (žołto-módry ‘yellow and blue’, módro-čerwjeno-běły ‘blue, red and white’), or other qualities (hłu-

2818

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

choněmy ‘deaf-mute’). The sequence of the constituent parts does not change their meaning; it is, however, normally determined by extralinguistic factors, e.g., by the perspective of the speaker or by the actual situation, or is conventionally determined. In adjectival copulative compounds, the constituent parts are always linked by the vowel -o-.

3.3. Verbal compounds The number of verbal compounds is comparatively low in Upper Sorbian; they predominantly occur as loan translations from German. Adjectives as their first constituent are connected to the second one by the linking vowel -o-, e.g., runostajić ‘to equate; lit. equal-arrange’ (G. gleichstellen), rjanobarbić ‘to gloss over; lit. nice-colour’ (G. schönfärben). In colloquial language, verbal hybrid formations are widely found; the first constituent can be an adverb (kaputthić ‘to break; lit. broken go’, G. kaputtgehen), a noun (plajtehić ‘to go broke; lit. bankruptcy go’, G. Pleite gehen), or an adjectival preverb (fertichčinić ‘to wipe out; lit. ready-make’, G. fertigmachen) (Scholze 2008: 306−310).

3.4. Other compounds Certain compound numerals in the tens, hundreds and thousands, as well as half-numbers up to seven and a half are formed by univerbation with a quantifying relationship between the first and second constituent, e.g., dźewjećdźesat ‘ninety; lit. nine ten’, dwěsćě ‘two hundred’, třitysac ‘three thousand’, połsta ‘fifty; lit. half hundred-GEN’, połdra ‘one and a half; lit. half-second’ (← poł ‘half’ + druha ‘second’) or połtřeća ‘two and a half; lit. half-third’. With some numeral compounds in Sorbian, both parts of the compound are coordinated to each other; this pertains to the numerals between 21 and 99 (jedynadwaceći ‘twenty-one; lit. one and twenty’, dźewjećadźewjećdźesat ‘ninety-nine; lit. nine and ninety’). With the hundreds starting at 200, the orthography varies; both separate and compound spelling are possible (tři sta and třista ‘three hundred’).

4.

Derivation

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Denominal nouns Prefixation plays a relatively minor role in Upper Sorbian denominal word-formation. Typical nominal prefixes are bjez- ‘-less; without’, nje- ‘non-, un-’, pra- ‘pre-, proto-’, nad- ‘over-, super-’, před- ‘before; in front of’ (e.g., nječłowjek ‘brute; lit. non-human’, pradźěd ‘great-grandfather’, nadčłowjek ‘superhuman; lit. over-human’), which are also common for non-personal nouns (e.g., bjezdźak ‘ungratefulness; lit. without-thank’, prawěk ‘prehistoric times’, předskok ‘headstart; lit. before-jump’). New prefixal forma-

155. Upper Sorbian

2819

tions are primarily loan translations based on German models (e.g., podskupina ‘subgroup; lit. under-group’, G. Untergruppe; předdwór ‘front yard; lit. before-yard’, G. Vorhof). Neoclassical and other foreign prefixes such as arcy-, anti-, de(s)-, eks- ‘ex-’, etc. are rarely observed with indigenous Sorbian bases (arcynjepřećel ‘archenemy’, kopředsyda ‘co-chairman’, eksmuž ‘ex-husband’). Examples with prefixes and root words of foreign origin (e.g., arcybiskop ‘archbishop’, desinformacija ‘disinformation’, eksminister ‘exminister’) are to be viewed as loans. Suffixation is more frequently found than prefixation. S t a t u s n o u n s are derived by the suffix -stwo, e.g., přećelstwo ‘friendship’ (← přećel ‘friend’), kmótřistwo ‘godparenthood’ (← kmótr ‘godparent’). P e r s o n a l n o u n s denote, e.g., professions. Productive suffixes are -ar/-er, -nik, in some cases also -ak, e.g., blidar ‘carpenter’ (← blido ‘table’), hornčer ‘potter’ (← hornc ‘pot’), zahrodnik ‘gardener’ (← zahroda ‘garden’), dudak ‘bagpipe player’ (← dudy ‘bagpipes’). Personal nouns according to their provenance/origin (names of inhabitants) or membership are derived by the productive suffixes -[’]an, -čan, -owc, e.g., stronjan ‘party member’ (← strona ‘party’), Radworčan ‘inhabitant of Radibor’ (← Radwor ‘Radibor’), Kolumbičan ‘Colombian’ (← Kolumbiska ‘Colombia’), ansamblowc ‘member of an ensemble’ (← ansambl ‘ensemble’). Seldom, denotations of people according to a characteristic feature, partly expressing pejorative connotations, are derived by -ač, e.g., brjuchač ‘paunch’ (← brjuch ‘belly’). F e m a l e p e r s o n a l n o u n s are predominantly motivated by the corresponding male noun, in Upper Sorbian derived by the suffixes -ka (wučerka ← wučer ‘teacher’, Radworčanka ← Radworčan ‘resident of Radibor’), -owka (Serbowka ← Serb ‘Sorb’, kupcowka ← kupc ‘buyer’), and sporadically by -ča (sportowča ← sportowc ‘athlete’, pósłanča ← pósłanc ‘delegate’). Female personal nouns using the suffix -uška are motivated by masculine nouns ending in -uch (čornuška ← čornuch ‘black man’); female derivatives ending in -nica come from masculine nouns in -nik (zahrodnica ← zahrodnik ‘gardener’, hudźbnica ← hudźbnik ‘musician’); the suffix variant -niča is only sporadically found, e.g., kuzłarniča (← kuzłar ‘magician’). Names of f e m a l e a n i m a l s are normally derived by the suffix -ica, e.g., jelenica ‘doe’ (← jeleń ‘stag’), kołpica ‘swan’ f. (← kołp). Denominal p l a c e n o u n s are formed by a number of suffixes, the most productive one being -(n)išćo (běrnišćo ‘potato field’ ← běrna ‘potato’, trawnišćo ‘patch of grass’ ← trawa ‘grass’), -nja (kehelnja ‘bowling alley’ ← kehel ‘pin’, kowarnja ‘smithy’ ← kowar ‘smith’), -ownja (knihownja ‘library’ ← kniha ‘book’), -arnja/-ernja (brunicarnja ‘brown coal mine’ ← brunica ‘brown coal’), -ica (winica ‘vineyard’ ← wino ‘wine’), -enc (hołbjenc ‘pigeonry’ ← hołb ‘pigeon’). (For further place nouns see Lewaszkiewicz 1988.) C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s are formed by the suffix -stwo, -owina or -ina (wučerstwo ‘teachers’ ← wučer ‘teacher’, bukowina ‘beech forest’ ← buk ‘beech’, jězorina ‘lakeland’ ← jězor ‘lake’, dźěćina ‘children’ ← dźěćo ‘child’). D i m i n u t i v e s and a u g m e n t a t i v e s have potential character in Upper Sorbian, i.e. they can theoretically be formed from any noun if the meaning allows for it. Both diminutives and augmentatives can also convey hypocoristic and pejorative connotations. The basic d i m i n u t i v e suffixes are -k, -ka, -ko, e.g., kehelk ← kehel ‘pin’, holčka ← holca ‘girl’, dźěćko ← dźěćo ‘child’. The systematic consonant alternation occurring,

2820

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

among others, when adding diminutive suffixes (hornčk ← hornc ‘pot’, nóžka ← noha ‘leg’, ručka ← ruka ‘hand’, wěčko ← wěko ‘lid’), is inherited from Proto-Slavonic and continues to take effect in the contemporary language system. Also in more recent formations (incl. loanwords and internationalisms), some consonants alternate, e.g., tobačk ← tobak ‘tobacco’. With masculine personal nouns, the suffix -ik is productive (bratřik ← bratr ‘brother’, kralik ← kral ‘king’). Feminine diminutives of the first level of derivation are often formed by the suffix -ička (originally used for the second level of the derivation of diminutives), e.g., kmótřička ← kmótra ‘godmother’, kurwička ← kurwa ‘whore’. The formation of diminutives from abstract nouns is a more recent development in Upper Sorbian (myslička ‘idea’ ← mysl ‘thought’, prašenčko ‘quick question’ ← prašenje ‘question’). For deriving a u g m e n t a t i v e s , the suffix -isko is most productive. In Upper Sorbian, this suffix is monofunctional, i.e. it forms, without exceptions, augmentatives only (e.g., dubisko ← dub ‘oak’, chěžisko ← chěža ‘house’, štomisko ← štom ‘tree’, mužisko ← muž ‘man’). The suffix -išćo is polyfunctional: it is used to form augmentatives, but first of all place nouns (cf. above). Augmentatives are also used to express connotative meanings, in particular pejorative ones (e.g., žonišćo ‘butch’ ← žona ‘woman’). Derivatives in -isko can imply positive connotations of admiration or recognition (Tajke krasne štomisko! ‘What a nice, big tree!’), but also pejorative ones (hólčisko ← hólc ‘boy’, psyčisko ‘big or ugly dog’ ← psyk ‘dog’). Derivatives of the type nachribjetnik ‘rucksack’, předešćnik ‘umbrella’, etc., are the result of a combination of prefixation and suffixation (circumfixation), a productive model in Upper Sorbian: nachribjetnik (← na + chribjet + nik ‘something (that is carried) on the back’), předešćnik (← pře + dešć + nik ‘something (that protects) against the rain’).

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Deadjectival nouns in Upper Sorbian are exclusively the result of suffixation. A b s t r a c t n o u n s are derived by the suffixes -osć (rjanosć ‘beauty’ ← rjany ‘beautiful’, kedźbliwosć ‘attention; caution’ ← kedźbliwy ‘careful’), -ota (dobrota ‘benefit’ ← dobry ‘good’), -izna (šěrizna ‘greyness’ ← šěry ‘grey’), -ina (módrina ‘blueness’ ← módry ‘blue’), the latter being especially productive for designations of languages such as čěšćina ‘Czech (language)’ ← čěski ‘Czech’, based on the Czech model of the 19 th century. Sometimes they denote a certain action or have a concrete meaning, e.g., -izna (mokrizna ‘liquid’ ← mokry ‘wet’). P e r s o n a l n o u n s can be derived by the suffixes -ak (hłupak ‘dumbhead’ ← hłupy ‘dumb’) and -ik (zawistnik ‘envious person, envier’ ← zawistny ‘envious’), in some cases also by -c (skupc ‘cheapskate’ ← skupy ‘stingy’) and -olinka (krasnolinka ‘beautiful girl’ ← krasny ‘beautiful’). N o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s of different semantic groups can be derived by the suffixes -ica (brunica ‘brown coal’ ← bruny ‘brown’), -ka (bankowka ‘banknote’ ← bankowy ‘bank’ relational adj.), -ik (hodownik ‘December’ ← hodowny ‘Christmas’ relational adj.).

155. Upper Sorbian

2821

Some deadjectival nouns belong to the category of p l a c e n o u n s (swjatnica ‘sanctuary, temple’ ← swjaty ‘holy’) or serve to designate certain h o l i d a y s (jutrownička ‘Easter Sunday’ ← jutrowny ‘Easter’ relational adj.).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns In Upper Sorbian, deverbal nouns cover a broad spectrum of meanings. A c t i o n n o u n s play the largest role; they can be potentially derived from any verb (by the suffixes -nje or -će). In the literature on Sorbian grammar (e.g., Šewc 1984: 209), deverbal action nouns are described as similar to paradigmatic forms of the verb. However, we concur with the position of Faßke (1981: 331) who assigns them to nominal word-formation. The suffixes -nje or -će form abstract nouns (kupanje ‘(the) bathing’ ← kupać ‘to bathe’, biće ‘(the) beating’ ← bić ‘to beat’) and/or express (metonymic) concrete meaning (sykanje ‘chopped straw’ ← sykać ‘to chop’); normally, only the latter are lexicographically described. Some action nouns with the suffix -(ań)ca/-(eń)ca have an expressive connotation, e.g., čakańca ‘(boring, long) waiting’ (← čakać ‘to wait’). Contrary to other Slavic languages, e.g., Polish, some action nouns in Upper Sorbian can be derived from modal or auxiliary verbs, e.g., dyrbjenje ‘having to’ (← dyrbjeć ‘to have to’), chcyće ‘wanting’ (← chcyć ‘to want’). Up to the first half of the 19 th century, Upper Sorbian used deverbal nouns with the suffixes -nje/-njo and -će/-ćo not only as action nouns, but also as result nouns (postrowjenje ‘greeting’, dowěrjenje ‘trust’, podaće ‘event’). After 1840, they were replaced by deverbal nouns with the zero-suffix, -a, -k, or -(n)osć (e.g., postrow ‘greeting’ ← postrowić ‘to greet’, dopokaz ‘proof’ ← dopokazać ‘to prove’, wotmołwa ‘answer’ ← wotmołwić ‘to answer’, dowěra ‘trust’ ← dowěrić ‘to trust’, zadźěwk ‘obstacle’ ← zadźěwać ‘to obstruct’, dowolnosć ‘permission’ ← dowolić ‘to allow’. Derivatives with the zero-suffix can also be interpreted as a result of verb-to-noun conversion. R e s u l t n o u n s are formed by several suffixes, the most productive of them being -k, e.g., dodawk ‘addition’ (← dodawać ‘to add’), zapisk ‘note’ (← zapisać ‘to note’), wudźěłk ‘product’ (← wudźěłać ‘to produce’); other suffixes are -enc, -anka, -wo, or the zero-suffix: palenc ‘schnapps, brandy’ (← palić ‘to distil’), domchowanka ‘harvest festival’ (← domchować ‘to bring in sth.’), zličbowanka ‘bill’ (← zličbować ‘to add up, calculate’), pječwo ‘biscuits, cakes’ (← pjec ‘to bake’), napis ‘lettering, inscription, heading’ (← napisać ‘to write down’). In the category of a g e n t n o u n s , the most productive suffix is -ar/-er, e.g., wučer ‘teacher’ (← wučić ‘to teach’), hladar ‘caretaker’ (← hladać ‘to care for’); further suffixes are -ćel (darićel ‘giver’ ← darić ‘to give’), -ak (usually with a pejorative meaning, e.g., bledźak ‘gossiper’ ← bledźić ‘to gossip’), rarer is -ćer (dźěłaćer ‘worker’ ← dźěłać ‘to work’). The suffix -awa forms deverbal denotations of f e m a l e p e r s o n a l n o u n s with a pejorative meaning (bledźawa ‘gossiper’ f. ← bledźić ‘to gossip’). Otherwise and in addition to further suffixes such as -dło (lětadło ‘airplane’ ← lětać ‘to fly’), -awa serves the formation of i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s (młóćawa ‘threshing machine’ ← młóćić ‘to thresh’, měšawa ‘mixer’ ← měšeć ‘to mix’). The latter are also formed by the suffixes -ak (wobuwak ‘shoe horn’ ← wobuwać ‘to put on (shoes, stockings, trousers)’, pisak ‘pen’ ← pisać ‘to write’), or -ka (hrajka ‘toys’ ← hrać ‘to play’).

2822

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Deverbal p l a c e n o u n s are derived by the suffix -nišćo, e.g., hrajkanišćo ‘playground’ (← hrajkać ‘to play’) or -(ań)ca/-(eń)ca (wustajeńca ‘exhibition’ ← wustajeć ‘to exhibit’).

4.2. Adjectival derivation A quantitative description of what share denominal, deadjectival or deverbal adjectives take among derived adjectives in Sorbian is difficult because these derivatives often have potential character and are therefore not always recorded lexicographically.

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives In Sorbian grammars (cf. Faßke 1981: 338−342; Schuster 1984: 100−106), denominal adjectives are described as r e l a t i o n a l a d j e c t i v e s (only radical adjectives, i.e. those that have not undergone derivation, are regarded as qualitative adjectives). A distinction, however, is made between those relational adjectives that refer to objects or phenomena (e.g., wolijowy ← wolij ‘oil’, žitny ← žito ‘grain’, zymski ← zyma ‘winter’), and those that denote properties of a given object or phenomenon (expressing p o s s e s s i o n , e.g., brodaty ‘bearded’ ← broda ‘beard’, or s i m i l a r i t y, e.g., dźěćacy ‘childish, childlike’ ← dźěćo ‘child’, kulojty ‘round’ ← kula ‘ball’). For the formation of denominal adjectives with a foreign base, the suffixes -ny and -owy are used without a semantic difference between the derivatives, e.g., internetowa/internetna strona ‘Internet page’, kontaktowy/kontaktny běrow ‘contact point’. Detoponymic adjectives are derived by the use of the suffixes -ski (Radworski ← Radwor (G. Radibor), e.g., Radworska šula ‘the Radibor School’), -owski (Łazowski ← Łaz (G. Lohsa), e.g., Łazowska cyrkej ‘the Lohsa church’), or -’anski (Bukečanski ← Bukecy (G. Hochkirch), e.g., Bukečanski pjekar ‘the baker from Hochkirch’). P o s s e s s i v e a d j e c t i v e s are a special group of relational adjectives, formed by the suffixes -owy from non-female personal nouns, e.g., wučerjowa (← wučer ‘teacher’) toboła ‘the pocket of the teacher’, dźěsćowy (← dźěćo ‘child’) bul ‘the ball of the child’, Pětrowe (← Pětr) cholowy ‘Peter’s trousers’, and -iny/-yny from female personal nouns, e.g., sotřiny (← sotra ‘sister’) přećel ‘the friend of the sister’, Hancyna (← Hanka) kniha ‘Hanka’s book’. Highly frequent are adjectives derived from action nouns by the suffix -ski, e.g., dźěłanski (← dźěłanje ‘working’, e.g., dźěłanska drasta ‘work clothes’), pisanski (← pisanje ‘writing’, e.g., pisanska mašina ‘typewriter’). This group also includes adjectives derived from compounds with the linking vowel -o-, e.g., wobswětoškitny ‘environmental protection (relational adj.)’ (← wobswětoškit ‘environmental protection’). The base for derived adjectives can be a prepositional syntagm; they can also be regarded as a result of circumfixation, e.g., podzemska (← pod zemju) woda ‘underground water’ (G. Grundwasser), předšulska (← před šulu) staroba ‘pre-school age’ (G. Vorschulalter), nadróžny (← na dróze sg./na dróhach pl.) wobchad ‘road traffic’ (G. Straßenverkehr). These productive word-formation models often appear as part of equivalents of German compounds, in particular compounds of a complex structure.

155. Upper Sorbian

2823

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives With the use of various modifying affixes, certain features of the base can be negated or modified. The prefix nje- serves the negation of the meaning of the base word, e.g., njebojazny ‘fearless’ (← bojazny ‘fearful’). Prefixes with a p p r o x i m a t i v e meaning are na- (namódry ‘bluish’ ← módry ‘blue’), rarer po- (pobědny ‘somewhat miserable’ ← bědny ‘miserable’, poćěmny ‘a bit dark’ ← ćěmny ‘dark’). I n t e n s i f y i n g prefixes are pře- (přestary ‘too old’ ← stary ‘old’), pra- (prastary ‘very old, ancient’ ← stary ‘old’), and arcy- (arcyreakcionarny ‘very reactionary’ ← reakcionarny ‘reactionary’). Modifications can also be expressed by the following suffixes: A p p r o x i m a t i v e meaning is expressed, amongst others, by the suffix -ojty (běłojty ‘whitish’ ← běły ‘white’), i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n by -ički, -uški, and -uščički (cylički ‘entirely’ ← cyły ‘entire’, blěduški ‘very pale’ ← blědy ‘pale’, lubuščički ‘sweetest, nicest’ ← luby ‘sweet, nice’). In some colour adjectives, approximative meaning is also achieved by a combination of prefixation and zero-suffixation (expressed by palatalisation of the final consonant of the stem), e.g., nazeleń ‘greenish’ ← zeleny ‘green’, nažołć ‘yellowish’ ← žołty ‘yellow’. Gradation takes an intermediate position between inflection and derivation, and is to be mentioned here as well. The comparative is formed by the suffixes -iši/-yši or -ši (měrniši ‘quieter’ ← měrny ‘quiet’, horcyši ‘hotter’ ← horcy ‘hot’, starši ‘older’ ← stary ‘old’). The superlative is derived from the comparative using the prefix naj- (najstarši ‘oldest’ ← starši ‘older’); the absolutive from the superlative using na- (nanajstarši ‘older than anything else’ ← najstarši ‘oldest’).

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Adjectives with active or passive meaning are derived from verbs by the suffixes -awy and -ny (dźěławy ‘hardworking’ ← dźěłać ‘to work’, skutkowny ‘effective’ ← skutkować ‘to effect’). Furthermore, certain preferences or the inclination towards an action can be expressed, e.g., by the suffix -aty as in bachtaty ‘gossiping’ (← bachtać ‘to gossip’), kusaty ‘biting’ − usually pejorative (← kusać ‘to bite’), and by the suffix -iwy, -liwy, -niwy: bledźiwy ‘gossipy’ (← bledźić ‘to gossip’), darliwy, darniwy ‘generous’ (← darić ‘to give’). Adjectives derived by the suffixes -omny and -ity express a possibility, e.g., bělomny ‘peelable’ (← bělić ‘to peel’), přeměnity ‘changeable’ (← přeměnić ‘to change’).

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Denominal verbs In Upper Sorbian, denominal verbs of various categories are formed by the suffixes -ić, -ać, and -ować; a combination of prefixation and suffixation (circumfixation) is also possible as can be seen in the following:

2824

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

a) ‘to act as/in the manner of N’: krawcować ‘to be a tailor’ (← krawc ‘tailor’), kmótřić ‘to act as godparent’ (← kmótr ‘godparent’), kralować ‘to reign as king’ (← kral ‘king’), kapłanić ‘to be a chaplain’ (← kapłan ‘chaplain’), přećelić so ‘to be friends’ (← přećel ‘friend’); b) ‘to become N’: směrkać so ‘to get dark, night sets’ (← směrki ‘twilight, dusk’), skamjenjeć ‘to fossilize’ (← kamjeń ‘stone’); c) ‘to make N’: sukać ‘to knot’ (← suk ‘knot’), walčkować ‘to tie into bundles’ (← walčka ‘bundle’), kopić ‘to heap’ (← kopa ‘heap’), sfilmować ‘to make a film of sth.’ (← film ‘film’), zwotročić ‘to enslave’ (← wotročk ‘farmhand, slave’); d) ‘to provide with N’: selić ‘to add salt’ (← sel ‘salt’), barbić ‘to paint’ (← barba ‘paint’), pozłoćić ‘to gold-plate’ (← złoto ‘gold’); e) ‘to act with N’: huslić ‘to play the violin’ (← husle ‘violin’), sněhakować ‘to ski’ (← sněhaki ‘ski’), kołkować ‘to stamp’ (← kołk ‘stamp’); f) ‘to remove N’: wuludnić ‘to depopulate’ (← lud ‘population’), wotjědojćić ‘to decontaminate’ (← jěd ‘toxin’), wotmócnić ‘to disempower sb./sth.’ (← móc ‘rule; power’); g) ‘to be in/on N’: stanować ‘to camp’ (← stan ‘tent’), zahnězdźić so ‘to nest’ (← hnězdo ‘nest’), přizemić ‘to land’ (← zemja ‘land’). Currently, the most productive suffix is -ować, also evidenced by ad-hoc formations such as computerować/kompjuterować ‘to work at/with the computer’ (← computer/ kompjuter), mječować ‘to fight with the sword’ (← mječ ‘sword’).

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Deadjectival i n c h o a t i v e verbs are formed by the suffixes -nyć (bohatnyć ‘to become rich’ ← bohaty ‘rich’), blědnyć ‘to pale’ (← blědy ‘pale’), or -ić (módrić ‘to turn blue’ ← módry ‘blue’, brunić ‘to turn brown’ ← bruny ‘brown’). The suffix -ić is also used in the formation of f a c t i t i v e verbs, e.g., čisćić ‘to clean’ (← čisty ‘clean’). Circumfixation is attested in factitive verbs like porjeńšić ‘to make more beautiful’ (← rjeńši, comparative of rjany ‘beautiful’), rozšěrić ‘to spread, make wider’ (← šěroki ‘wide’), znižić ‘to lower’ (← niski ‘low’), and in inchoative verbs like wochudnyć ‘to become poor’ (← chudy ‘poor’), zestarjeć ‘to grow old’ (← stary ‘old’).

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs In Upper Sorbian, there is a close connection between verbal affixation, verbal aspect and aktionsart. (The latter is formed by prefixation.) As a result, the following must be clearly differentiated: first, prefixed verbs whose basic meaning is merely modified; these form aktionsarten, e.g., čitać ‘to read’ − dočitać = finitive ‘to finish reading’, and, second, prefixed verbs such as pokazać ‘to show’ − dopokazać ‘to prove’, whose meaning strongly differs from the base verb (Šewc 1984: 177). Consequently, imperfective verbs can only be derived from verbs of the second group, using suffixation; both verbs may form an aspect pair: dopokazać (pf.) − dopokazować (ipf.).

155. Upper Sorbian

2825

Suffixation of simplex verbs is also possible. There is only rarely a change in meaning involved, e.g., in wjazać ‘to bind’ and wjaznyć ‘to get stuck’; normally the action is simply modified, e.g., drapać ‘to scratch’ − drapnyć ‘to scratch’ (semelfactive). The same applies to the formation of verbal diminutives, e.g., smějkać so, smějkotać so ‘to smile’ (← smjeć so ‘to laugh’), drěmotać ‘to nap a little bit’ (← drěmać ‘to nap’). For a comprehensive treatment of verbal affixation and its consequences for aspect and aktionsart, see Werner (2003). In Upper Sorbian, deverbal verbs often also emerge as the result of loan translations of German verbs; despite their prefix, they are frequently imperfective, e.g., wotwolić = pf. ‘to vote sb. out’ (← wot ‘of, from’ + wolić ‘to elect’, G. abwählen), but wobknježić = ipf. ‘to master sth.’ (← wob ‘be-’ + knježić ‘to rule’, G. beherrschen). In colloquial speech, hybrid derivatives formed by using German prefixes are also widely found, e.g., onšinć ‘to arrive’ (= an-přińć ← an + přińć ‘to come’, G. an-kommen) (Scholze 2008: 307).

4.4. Adverbial derivation Most productive is the derivation of adverbs from adjectives with the morphemes -’e or -o, e.g., prawje ‘correctly’ (← prawy ‘right, correct’), hordźe (← hordy ‘proud’), daloko (← daloki ‘far’) (Faßke 1981: 355−359). Adverbs that have developed historically (i.e. non-deadjectival adverbs) include the derivatives wonka ‘outside’ (← won ‘out there’ + -ka), nutřka ‘inside’ (← nutř ‘into’ + -ka), horjeka ‘above’ (← horje ‘upwards’ + -ka); the suffix -ka expresses static localisation.

5. Conversion In Sorbian word-formation, deverbal nouns like postrow ‘greeting’ (← postrowić ‘to greet’), wotmołwa ‘answer’ (← wotmołwić ‘to answer’) are treated as results of derivation by the zero-suffix, or by the morpheme -a (cf. Jentsch 1999: 274; see also section 4.1.3) and not as a result of conversion. Also denominal verbs (type kralować ‘to reign as king’ ← kral ‘king’) as well as deadjectival ones (type blědnyć ‘to pale’ ← blědy ‘pale’) are traditionally seen as derivatives (cf. sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). Verbal conversion is impossible in Sorbian.

5.1. Nominal conversion Conversion is often found in p e r s o n a l n o u n s , e.g., chory ‘invalid’ (← chory ‘ill’), jaty ‘prisoner’ (← jaty (passive participle) ‘captive’), denominations of professions, e.g., přistajeny ‘employee’ (← passive participle of přistajić ‘to employ’), and in f e m a l e f o r m s o f s u r n a m e s going back to possessive adjectives (see section 4.2.1), e.g.,

2826

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Šewc → Šewcowa ‘the wife of Šewc’, Zynda → Zyndźina ‘the wife of Zynda’. In all cases, the adjectival declension is maintained. In Upper Sorbian, there are nominalised adjectives and participles which can also be understood as a form of ellipsis, e.g., Wjesna dróha → Wjesna ‘village road’, spanska stwa → spanska ‘bedroom; lit. sleeping room’, bydlenska stwa → bydlenska ‘living room’, howjaze mjaso → howjaze ‘beef’, bunjacy kofej → bunjacy ‘bean coffee’, Němska zemja ‘German country’ → Němska ‘Germany’, Čěska zemja ‘Czech country’ → Čěska ‘Czech Republic’, Sakska zemja → Sakska ‘Saxony’, słužowna holca → słužowna ‘maid’.

5.2. Adjectival conversion Some participles and partly transgressives (gerunds), indeclinable in origin, have converted to adjectives and are now declined as such, e.g., bywši ‘former’, njetrjebawši ‘unnecessary’, zrały ‘ripe’, zašły ‘past’, dorostły ‘grown’.

5.3. Adverbial conversion Several adverbs, such as mjelčo ‘soft’, ducy ‘on the way’, hladajcy ‘visibly’, njenadźicy ‘unexpectedly’, njejapcy ‘suddenly’ (Šewc 1984: 216), are formed from previous transgressives (gerunds). There are also some adverbs which are based on case forms of nouns, e.g., skoku (locative of skok ‘jump’) ‘fast’, wčera (genitive) ‘yesterday’, domoj (dative) ‘home’, wječor (accusative) ‘in the evening’, sobotu (accusative) ‘on Saturday(s)’, and adverbs which are based on prepositional case forms of nouns or pronouns (univerbation), e.g., póćmje ‘in the dark’ (← pó ćmě), klětu ‘next year’ (← k lětu), zrazom ‘at the same time’ (← z razom), potajkim ‘actually’ (← po tajkim) (cf. Faßke 1981: 528).

6. Reduplication Reduplication is not very productive in Upper Sorbian; among others, swjatoswjaty ‘sacrosanct’, wěstowěsty ‘complete sure’ can be found; these are forms used in the literary language only. Examples of older Upper Sorbian reduplications, some of which originate from Proto-Slavonic and are no longer recognisable as such, include ćeta ← *teta ‘aunt’, paproć ← *paportь ‘fern’, kukel ← *kǫkeljь ‘corncockle’, dźěd ← *dědъ ‘grandfather’ (cf. Schuster-Šewc 1978–89).

7. Blending Contaminations (portmanteaus) result from a blend of two different expressions; they are often consciously constructed to achieve stylistic effects. Blendings of foreign origin

155. Upper Sorbian

2827

and common in German can be loaned into Sorbian, e.g., demokratura ← G. Demokratur (Demokratie ‘democracy’ + Diktatur ‘dictatorship’), Eurazija ← G. Eurasien (Europa ‘Europe’ + Asien ‘Asia’). A younger formation is Nukstock, a non-commercial metal festival with numerous live bands, motivated by the Sorbian name of the event location Nuknica (G. Nucknitz) and Woodstock. Based on the English model brunch (from breakfast and lunch), the Sorbian blending snobjed (← snědań ‘breakfast’ and wobjed ‘lunch’) was formed with the same meaning.

8. Clipping Clipped words are usually borrowings from German. They occur as head words (backclipping, e.g., abonement → abo, limonada → limo, dekoracija → deko, prominentny → promi), tail words (fore-clipping, e.g., Omnibus → bus) or as syllable words (e.g., G. Auszubildender → Azubi > Upper Sorbian acubi ‘trainee’, Kriminalpolizei → Kripo > Upper Sorbian kripo ‘criminal investigation department’). A syllable word independently formed in Upper Sorbian is the term prodrustwo ‘producers’ cooperative’ (← produkciske drustwo), which was coined in the 1950s; another coinage of that kind is the word Marorě = Mało rozšěrjene rěče ‘little-spread languages’, introduced by Kito Lorenc (Lorenc 1998: 50−51). Apart from these examples, syllable clipping is uncommon in Sorbian. The most frequent type of abbreviations are initial words, made up of the initial letters of the base words, e.g., SLA = Serbski ludowy ansambl ‘Sorbian National Ensemble’, NC = Nowy Casnik ‘New Newspaper’ (name of the Lower Sorbian weekly newspaper); rarer are word-pronounced types like SKI = Serbska kulturna informacija ‘Sorbian Cultural Information’. Initial words and acronyms common in German are mostly taken up into Sorbian unchanged, e.g., LKW = Lastkraftwagen ‘lorry’, EDV = Elektronische Datenverarbeitung ‘electronic data processing’, UNO, UNICEF, ufo ← UFO = Unbekanntes Flugobjekt ‘Unidentified Flying Object’, TÜV = Technischer Überwachungsverein ‘Technical Control Board’, NATO. In Sorbian, acronyms of the word-pronounced type are usually indeclinable. Abbreviations can form the base for derivatives, e.g., CDnik ‘CD-ROM drive’, FSJnik ‘participant of the voluntary social year’ (← G. FSJ = Freiwilliges soziales Jahr), BFDnik ‘participant in the German Federal voluntary service’ (← G. BDF = Bundesfreiwilligendienst), pdf-ka ‘PDF file’.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues Dr Jana Schulz and Dr Sonja Wölke for their support and advice.

2828

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

9. References Adamenko, Svitlana 1999 Serbolužic’ka botanyčna nomenklatura. Їï formuvannja ta specyfika. Ph.D. dissertation, Ľvivs’kyj deržavnyj universytet im. Ivana Franka Ľviv. Bayer, Markus 2006 Sprachkontakt deutsch-slavisch. Eine kontrastive Interferenzstudie am Beispiel des Ober- und Niedersorbischen, Kärntnerslovenischen und Burgenlandkroatischen. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Brankačkec, Katja 2009 Verbalpräfixe im Obersorbischen. Verbpartikeln im älteren Sorbischen und ihre Entsprechungen im modernen Sorbischen. Ph.D. dissertation, Charles University Prague. Dobrovský, Josef 1819 Lehrgebäude der Böhmischen Sprache. 2nd ed. Prag: Haase. Faßke, Helmut 1981 Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache. Morphologie. Unter Mitarbeit von Siegfried Michalk. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Giger, Markus 1999 Zu Lehnübersetzungen und Entlehnungen deutscher postponierbarer Präverbien im älteren Obersorbischen. In: Jan Peter Locher (ed.), Schweizerische Beiträge zum XII. Internationalen Slavistenkongress in Krakau, August 1998, 129−170. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Hanka, Václav 1822 Mluvnice čili soustava českého jazyka podle Dobrovského. Praha: Háze. Jakubaš, Filip 1956 Słowotworne přiwěški (sufiksy) serbskich wěcownikow a přidawnikow. Serbska šula 9: 385−405, 424−434. Jenč, Helmut 1963 Typy hornjoserbskeho nominalneho kompozita z wjazacym wokalom -o- a jeho rozšěrjenosć. Lětopis A 10(1): 133−153. Jentsch, Helmut 1999 Die Entwicklung der Lexik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Jentsch, Helmut, Anja Pohontsch and Jana Schulz 2006 Deutsch-obersorbisches Wörterbuch neuer Lexik. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Jordan, Johann Peter 1841 Grammatik der wendisch-serbischen Sprache in der Oberlausitz. Im Systeme Dobrovsky’s abgefasst. Prag: Ehrlich. Kłos, Zdzisław, Dorota Rzymska and Ewa Siatkowska 1988 Indeks a tergo do dolnołużyckiego słownika Arnošta Muki. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Kovalik, Ivan I. 1963 Nabljudenija nad slovoobrazovaniem prostranstvennych nazvanij v nižnelužickom jazyke. In: Jurij S. Maslov (ed.), Voprosy teorii i istorii jazyka. Sbornik v čest’ professora B. A. Larina, 170−175. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta. Kovalyk, Ivan I. 1964 Slovotvir imennykiv u serbolužyc’kych movach. Ľviv: Mašynno-ofsetna laboratorija Ľvivs’kogo universytetu. Kovalyk, Ivan I. 1967 Slovotvorčyj rozrjad prostorovych nazv u sučasnij verchn’olužyc’kij movi. In: Oleksandr S. Meľnyčuk (ed.), Struktura i rozvitok slov’jansʼkych mov, 86−92. Kyïv: Naukova dumka.

155. Upper Sorbian

2829

Kreja, Bogusław 1999 Słowotwórstwo polskie na tle słowiańskim. Studia. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Kreja, Bogusław 2004 Słowotwórstwo nazw żeńskich w języku górnołużyckim. Lětopis 51(1): 88−97. Krječmar, Mikławš 1954 Tworjenje słowow w hornjoserbšćinje. Lětopis A 2: 21−93. Lewaszkiewicz, Tadeusz 1988 Słowotwórstwo apelatywnych nazw miejsc w języku górnołużyckim. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Lewaszkiewicz, Tadeusz 2002 Obersorbisch. In: Miloš Okuka and Gerald Krenn (eds.), Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens. Vol. 10: Lexikon der Sprachen des Europäischen Ostens, 343−354. Klagenfurt: Wieser. Lorenc, Kito 1998 Suki w zakach. Basnje, basnje-njebasnje, přebasnjenja. Budyšin: Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina. Meškank, Timo 2001 Retrogradny słownik hornjoserbskeje rěče. Berlin: Mensch und Buch. Michajlov, Mark A. 1959 Suffiksy imen dejstvujuščego lica v serbolužickom jazyke. Učenyje zapiski Instituta Slavjanovedenija Akademii nauk SSSR 17: 128−208. Michałk, Frido 1974 Slovoobrazovanie. In: Konstantin K. Trofimowič (ed.), Hornjoserbsko-ruski słownik, 504−509. Budyšin/Moskwa: Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina/Nakładnistwo “Ruska rěč”. Milewska-Stawiany, Małgorzata 2009 Deminutiva w “De originibus linguae Sorabicae” Abrahama Frencla. In: Beata Milewska and Sylwia Rzedzicka (eds.), Wokół słów i znaczeń III. Z zagadnień leksykalno-semantycznych. Materiały trzeciej konferencji językoznawczej poświęconej pamięci Profesora Bogusława Krei, 351−357. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Milewska-Stawiany, Małgorzata 2010 Górnołużyckie deminutywa w “Vocabularium latino-serbicum” (1721) Jurija Hawštyna Swětlika. Slavia Occidentalis 67: 91−106. Milewska-Stawiany, Małgorzata 2011a Górnołużyckie deminutywa w systemie językowym i tekście. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Milewska-Stawiany, Małgorzata 2011b Deminutywa w liryce Jakuba Barta-Ćišinskiego. In: Dietrich Scholze and Franz Schön (eds.), Jakub Bart-Ćišinski (1856−1909). Erneuerer der sorbischen Literatur, 202−223. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Milewska-Stawiany, Małgorzata 2012 Górnołużyckie deminutywa w systemie językowym i w tekście. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Milewska-Stawiany, Małgorzata and Sonja Wölkowa (eds.) 2008 Leksikologiske přinoški. III. seminar serbskeje słowotwórby, 22.−23. 6. 2007. Budyšin: Serbski institut. Milewska-Stawiany, Małgorzata and Sonja Wölkowa (eds.) 2013 Leksikologiske přinoški 2. IV. seminar serbskeje słowotwórby, 31. 5.−1. 6. 2012. Budyšin: Serbski institut.

2830

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Mucke, Ernst 1911–27 Wörterbuch der nieder-wendischen Sprache und ihrer Dialekte. St. Petersburg/Prag: Verlag der russischen und tschechischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Pohončowa, Anja 2009 Internacionalizmy w hornjoserbskej spisownej rěči přitomnosće: Zarys problematiki. Lětopis 56(1): 81−92. Richter, Heinz 1980 Die Possessivadjektive im Sorbischen unter Berücksichtigung der benachbarten slawischen Sprachen. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Leipzig. Scholze, Lenka 2008 Das grammatische System der obersorbischen Umgangssprache. Bautzen: DomowinaVerlag. Schuster-Šewc, Heinz 1978–89 Historisch-etymologisches Wörterbuch der ober- und niedersorbischen Sprache. 4 Vol. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Schwela, Gotthold 1906 Lehrbuch der Niederwendischen Sprache. 1. Teil: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Ficker. Siatkowska, Ewa 1989 Uniwerbizacja na tle innych procesów słowotwórczych we współczesnej górnołużyckiej terminologii rolniczej. Studia z Filologii Rosyjskiej i Słowiańskiej. Językoznawstwo 18: 93−103. Spieß, Gunter 2002 Niedersorbisch. In: Miloš Okuka and Gerald Krenn (eds.), Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens. Vol. 10: Lexikon der Sprachen des Europäischen Ostens, 323− 342. Klagenfurt: Wieser. Stachowski, Stanisław 1967 Język górnołużycki w “De originibus linguae Sorabicae” Abrahama Frencla (1693– 1696). Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Stachowski, Stanisław 1968 Słowotwórstwo rzeczowników w języku górnołużyckim XVII wieku. In: Helmut Faßke and Ronald Lötzsch (eds.), Přinoški k serbskemu rěčespytej − Beiträge zur sorbischen Sprachwissenschaft, 180−191. Budyšin-Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Starosta, Manfred 1992 Niedersorbisch schnell und intensiv. Lehrbuch für Fortgeschrittene und sorabistisch Interessierte. Vol. 2. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Swětlik, Jurij Hawštyn 1721 Vocabularium latino-serbicum. Budischin: Richter. Šewc, Hinc 1984 Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rěče. Vol. 1: Fonologija, fonetika a morfologija. Budyšin: Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina. Tkačenko, Oleg B. 1970 Sovremennoe nižnelužickoe slovosloženie. In: Ljudmila Ė. Kalnyn’ (ed.), Issledovanija po serbolužickim jazykam, 126−150. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Völkel, Pawoł 1981 Hornjoserbsko-němski słownik. Prawopisny słownik hornjoserbskeje rěče. Budyšin: Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina. Werner, Eduard [Wornar, Edward] 2003 Die Verbalaffigierung im Obersorbischen. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. Wölke, Sonja 2005 Geschichte der sorbischen Grammatikschreibung. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag.

156. Polish

2831

Wölkowa, Sonja 2006 Aktualne tendencje rozwojowe w górnołużyckim języku literackim. Zeszyty Łużyckie 39/40: 37−49. Wornar, Edward 2001 K poměrej mjez hornjoserbskimi nominalnymi kompozitami a jich němskimi předłohami. Lětopis 48(1): 5−12. Wróbel, Henryk 1969 Słowotwórstwo przysłówków odprzymiotnikowych w językach łużyckich. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.

Anja Pohontsch, Bautzen/Budyšin (Germany)

156. Polish 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

Abstract The article presents an outline of contemporary Polish word-formation. Affixal derivation and conversion are identified as the most productive Polish word-formation processes. During the last decades, there has also been an increase in compounding. The different word-formation processes are analysed from a formal grammatical as well as from a semantic and pragmatic point of view.

1. Introduction The first works in Polish that discussed word-formation were textbooks for national schools modeled on Latin and Greek. An academic approach to word-formation appeared first in the second half of the 19 th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The first grammar of Polish based on the historical-comparative method by Małecki (1863) contained an overview of word-formation in a section under the heading “Etymology”

2832

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

(as in other Slavic grammars of the 19th century). The 19 th-century approach to wordformation, in keeping with the spirit of the times, was characterised by biologism (research into the “genealogy”, “word families”, and vocabulary “bastardisation”) and evolutionism (changes in language as part of “natural history”, interest in “linguistic paleography”). The beginning of the 20th century brought about a turn towards historism and psychologism. An attempt at a complete description of historical word-formation was made by Łoś (1922−27), who analysed Polish lexis from Old Polish to contemporary neologisms. Baudouin de Courtenay (1974) noted the psychological mechanisms of word motivation and association leading to the creation of a secondary “folk etymology”. Rozwadowski (1904) introduced the theory of the binary structure of words, based on the psychological law of apperception. Word-formation was the third branch of grammar, after syntax and phonetics, which formed an independent area of study; this was reflected in the publications by Benni (1905), Łoś (1914) and others. The early postwar period was dominated by Doroszewski and his school. He introduced word-formation categories (1946) and the logico-syntactic division of derivatives into the subject-oriented “to, co” (‘that, which’) and the predicative “to, że” (‘the fact that’) (1952). However, he rejected synchronic word-formation, which was further developed by his students. The 1960s and 1970s introduced theories concerning the differences between synchronically transparent derivatives and derivatives inherited from earlier stages of the language, word segmentation and the degree of its synchronic motivation, the function of formatives and their types, and the classification of derivatives (Laskowski and Wróbel 1964; Brodowska-Honowska 1967; Puzynina 1969; Grzegorczykowa 1972). The above served as a basis for data-based synthetic studies of the Polish derivation system, cf. Grzegorczykowa and Puzynina (1979) as well as the word-formation section of the Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego (GWJP) [Contemporary Polish Grammar] (1984, 1998). Empirical examinations have also lead to the publication of series of derivational dictionaries of Polish (Jadacka 2001b; Skarżyński 2004).

2. General overview 2.1. Word-formation in the language system According to the Polish linguistic tradition word-formation is a branch of morphology, and thus a branch of grammar. Within its limits the basic question is the boundary between derivation and inflection. For example, the status of verbal aspect is open to debate (aspectual pairs differentiated by suffixes are considered to be part of inflection, e.g., chwytać (ipf.) − chwycić (pf.) ‘to grab’, while pairs differentiated by a prefix are considered a part of word-formation, e.g., łapać (ipf.) − złapać (pf.) ‘to catch’), as well as that of participles declined like adjectives, including forms ending with -(a)ł(y), such as osiwiały ‘whose hair turned gray’, degree of adjectives (in GWJP recognised as a word-formation category). Due to their serial and productive character, verbal nouns, such as malowanie ‘(the action of) painting’ (from malować), as well as nominal formations with the prefix nie- (niezdrowy ‘unhealthy’) also trigger doubts regarding their status. The status of feminine nouns such as doktor ‘female doctor’ is also not clear. They are regarded either as new epicenes equal to the traditional type illustrated by

156. Polish

2833

beksa ‘crybaby’ (referring to males and females, inspite of the female ending), or they are treated as examples of “paradigmatic derivation” (conversion accompanied by an inflectional ending marking the change of paradigm), in which, exceptionally, the inflection is blocked. Designations such as szczoteczka do zębów ‘toothbrush; lit. small brush for teeth’, kobieta-demon ‘female demon; lit. woman-demon’, and zupa krem ‘cream soup; lit. soup cream’ occupy the borderline between syntax and morphology. Also formal procedures in which a nominal modifier is replaced by an adjective derived from that noun tend to be located within the scope of syntax rather than word-formation, cf. brzeg morza ‘the shore of the sea’ → brzeg morski ‘sea shore’ (nevertheless dictionaries feature both nouns and adjectives as separate lexemes: morze ‘sea’, morski ‘sea (adj.), marine’). Analytical adverbs such as po polsku ‘in Polish’ and derivatives of prepositional phrases, such as the adjective przeciwbólowy ‘pain-killing’ (← przeciw bólowi ‘against pain’) also stand at the borderline between derivation and composition.

2.2. Overall picture Word-formation remains the major means of enriching the Polish lexicon and outnumbers in productivity other possibilities, such as lexical borrowings or neosemantisation (mostly metaphorisation, e.g., rękaw ‘sleeve’ > ‘corridor to the plane’). The formation of nouns is the most productive type, including derivation proper as the most common procedure, derivation from prepositional phrases or composition. The word-formation structures vary in function and style, especially in case of the difference between the expressive colloquial language on the one hand, and the written formal register on the other. In colloquial Polish univerbation − in the Slavic literature on word-formation understood as the replacing of long official names with shorter synthetic forms (e.g., by combining ellipsis and suffixation) − is very common, cf. jagiellonka (← biblioteka Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego ‘Jagiellonian University Library’). Some often used affixes get stigmatised as colloquial, e.g., agentive -acz, -ak, -arz, and -nik. The colloquial register tends to accept more readily feminine titles derived from masculine ones, cf. profesorka ‘woman professor’. Non-morpheme-based word-formation, i.e. disintegrated structures with morphonological alternations, is widespread, such as kałach (informal) (← karabin Kałasznikowa ‘Kalashnikov rifle’). Familiar language is also known for its hypocorisms, diminutives of names and their augmentative forms. Unofficial communication features also quasi-diminutives as a sign of polite familiarity, e.g., kawusia (← kawa ‘coffee’). In written Polish there is a marked tendency for internationalisation, terminologisation and specialisation of word-formation means. Internationalisation leads to an increase of compounds, including serial analogical structures, e.g., those based on English workaholic, cf. zakupoholik ‘shopping addict; lit. shoppingaholic’ (zakupy ‘shopping’), as well as to the mechanical linking of foreign and native stems, e.g., telezakupy ‘teleshopping’. An increase in the productivity of foreign affixes has also been noted, especially -acj(a), -ator, -ist(a), -izm, -er. Terminologisation is visible in deverbal “paradigmatic derivation” (conversion), e.g., zgniot ‘(cold) squeeze’ (← zgniatać ‘to squeeze’). Specialisation leads to a narrowing of the semantic function of suffixes, e.g., -ark(a) to denote machines and appliances derived from verbs, cf. niszczarka (dokumentów) ‘paper shredder; lit. destroy-

2834

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

er’ (← niszczyć ‘to destroy’); the suffix -owiec is gradually narrowing down to form only denominal nouns, cf. deskorolkowiec ‘skateboarder’ (← deskorolka ‘skateboard’); the suffix -stw(o) forms mainly status nouns, cf. przeciętniactwo ‘mediocrity’ (← przeciętniak ‘the man in the street’), etc.

3. Composition 3.1. The degree of structural integration Compounds comprise quite a heterogeneous group, with the only common feature being the presence of two (or less often three or more) lexical morphemes within a single word structure. Their formal coalescence and the manner in which they are connected may vary. Juxtapositions, such as centrum handlowe (N + relational adjective) ‘shopping centre’, samochód pułapka (NNOM + NNOM) ‘car bomb; lit. car ambush’, have the least tight structure. Some scholars question whether they are actually a part of word-formation, because they are located at the borderline of composition, phraseology and syntax. They meet the criteria established for words: the order of constituents cannot be reversed, the constituents cannot be replaced by other words. Among the synthetic forms the simplest type is formed by “solid compounds” (Polish zrosty), i.e. the merger of syntactic structures without any linking material, cf. czcigodny ‘esteemed; lit. esteem-GEN-worthy’, Ojczenasz ‘Our Father; lit. father-VOC-our’ from the opening lines of the Lord’s Prayer. These compounds are motivated by a syntactic group the coalescence of which occurs without an interfix (linking vowel). Among the numerous neologisms coined in the last twenty years it is the compounds without an interfix, i.e. a mechanic combination of two stems, that seem to prevail (cf. Jadacka 2001a: 93). Compounds proper concern, for the most part, only two grammatical classes of Polish lexemes: nouns and adjectives. Base stems may be connected with the interfix -o-, like in zleceni-o-biorca ‘contractor; lit. contract-taker’, or in fewer examples with the interfix -i-/-y- or -u-, cf. łam-i-główka ‘jigsaw, puzzle, brain-teaser; lit. breakhead’ (from łamać ‘to break’ and główka ‘head-DIM’) and dw-u-ślad ‘four-wheeled vehicle; lit. two-track’ (from dwa- ‘two’ and ślad ‘track’). Suffixes may also function as co-formatives, cf. wiel-o-ród-ka ‘multipara’ (from wiele ‘many’ and rodzić ‘to give birth’), in the same way as a paradigm change might, cf. ciśnieni-o-mierz-0̸ ‘manometer’ (from ciśnienie ‘pressure’ and mierzyć ‘to measure’). A strictly interfix or mixed (forms with both an interfix and a suffix) interpretation depends mostly on what is considered as the input base, cf. bajkopisarz lit. ‘fablewriter’, interpreted as either derived from bajka ‘fable’ and pisarz ‘writer’ with just the interfix or from the whole phrase ktoś, kto pisze bajki ‘someone who writes fables’, with a complex formative. Another subclass of compounds proper (in works on Polish word-formation also called “quasi-compounds”) corresponds to English neoclassical word-formations. They feature Greek or Latin stems that usually cannot appear independently, but form numerous series of terms usually from scholarly or scientific fields. Data from postwar dictionaries corroborate that the most numerous are the ones with combining forms such as pseudo-, eks-, neo-, mono-, poli-, makro-, mikro-, izo-, and the final combining forms -logia, -metr, -grafia, -graf, -skop, -metria, -fon, -skopia, -fit, -fil. In the 1990s a surge

156. Polish

2835

of international borrowings and structural calques appeared, which popularised combining forms such as euro- ‘Euro-’, eko- ‘eco-’, narko- ‘drug related’, porno- ‘porn’, seks‘sex’, super-, tele-, wideo- ‘video’, etc. In contrast to the previously mentioned formations, these are not erudite terms and are not restricted to written Polish (see also article 96 on foreign word-formation in Polish).

3.2. Nominal compounds (proper) 3.2.1. Determinative compounds In determinative compounds the constituent being modified, i.e. the head, may appear as the right or the left constituent. According to the description of compounds in GWJP (1998: 455 ff.), the nominal determinative compounds proper are based on two types of phrases: verb phrases (VP) and noun phrases (NP). Their diversity depends on the type of the modifying, i.e. subordinate or dependent, constituent. A VP may contain a dependent noun or pronoun as its complement, cf. cud-o-twórca ‘miracle worker; lit. miracle maker’ (← tworzy cuda lit. ‘makes miracles’), sam-o-obrona ‘self-defense’ (← (ktoś) broni się sam ‘(sb.) defends himself’), an adverb, cf. skryt-o-bójca ‘assassin; lit. stealthy killer’ (← skrycie zabił ‘killed stealthily’), or a numeral, cf. wiel-o-bój ‘a generic name for multisport competitions, such as biathlon, triathlon, etc.’ (← (ktoś) bije się wiele razy ‘(sb.) competes many times’). The noun phrases that constitute the base of compounds may be divided into coordinate and non-coordinate. The subordinate word in the latter case may be a second noun: gwiazd-o-zbiór ‘constellation; lit. starset’; an adjective: płask-o-stopie ‘flat-footedness’, or a numeral: trój-dźwięk ‘triad; lit. threesound’, and pierwsz-o-klas-ista ‘first grader’. An observation of the inner structure of the compounds reveals interesting regularities. Thus structures motivated by a noun phrase are always right-headed according to the location of the modified constituent. Compounds motivated by a verb phrase may be both right and left-headed. Those in the latter group, with the verbal constituent at the end, are much more productive in contemporary Polish, cf. bałw-o-chwal-ca ‘idolater; lit. idol-worshipper’, drog-o-wskaz ‘road sign; lit. road-indicator’, kąt-o-mierz ‘protractor; lit. angle measurer’. Left-headed structures (V+S), albeit with some exceptions, are considered dated or humorous, cf. gol-i-broda ‘barber; lit. shave-beard’, łam-i-strajk ‘strikebreaker; lit. break-strike’, najm-i-morda ‘legal counsel; lit. hire-mug’. Therefore the Polish language is drifting, undoubtedly because of the foreign influence, towards the right-headed type of compounding. In principle the word order in a compound is free, i.e. the agent noun list-o-nosz lit. ‘letter carrier’ could have taken the form of *nosilist lit. ‘carry-letter’, while the compound tłucz-y-bruk ‘stone-breaker; lit. break-stone’ could assume a more contemporary form in the shape of *brukotłuk ‘stone-breaker’. It is believed that this free ordering is possible only in compounds in which the nominal constituent describes the object of the activity named by the verbal constituent and performed by somebody. Thus ręk-o-pis ‘manuscript; lit. handwrit’, for example, does not allow a transformation into *piszyręka lit. ‘writehand’ because ręka ‘hand’ is not the object, but the instrument, and the entire structure does not refer to ‘somebody who …’, but to ‘something that …’. Interfixed “paradigmatic compounds” (i.e. compounds whose second component is the result of verb-to-noun conversion) are ambivalent and allow both the interpretation

2836

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

‘person’ or ‘thing’, cf. the personal noun szczuro-łap ‘ratcatcher’ vs. wiatro-łap ‘storm doors; lit. wind-catcher’; similarly dziejo-pis ‘annalist; lit. history-writer’ vs. ręko-pis ‘manuscript’. One of the ways of making the structure less ambiguous is by adding agentive suffixes, such as -c(a), -arz, cf. -bior-ca ‘taker’ (kredytobiorca lit. ‘credit taker’), -bój-ca ‘killer’ (matkobójca ‘matricide; lit. motherkiller’), -daw-ca ‘giver’ (reklamodawca ‘advertiser; lit. advertisement giver’), -pis-arz ‘writer’ (powieściopisarz lit. ‘novel-writer’), -wier-ca ‘believer’ (innowierca ‘infidel; lit. else-believer’). Not all of them are however productive. The most frequently used are biorca and dawca, which are also used as independent elements in an equivalent phrase, especially in medical language, cf. krwiodawca ‘blood donor’, but dawca organów ‘organ donor; lit. donor of organs’. The description of compounds proper sometimes relies on a semantic distinction of two types: the exocentric and endocentric combinations. In the first type the center is as if outside of the compound, as opposed to the endocentric constructions. Kurzowa (1976: 39 ff.) applies this distinction only to nominal phrases, e.g., prost-o-kąt ‘rectangle; lit. straight-angle’ (it is not a ‘right angle’, but a shape with four right angles). These structures are also called “possessive”, because they express a characteristic feature of the subject described, e.g., goł-o-wąs ‘stripling’ (from goły ‘naked’ and wąs ‘moustache’, i.e. ‘somebody, whose face is yet not covered with facial hair, has no mustache’); krzywo-nos ‘somebody, whose nose is crooked’ (from krzywy ‘crooked’ and nos ‘nose’). However, today these compounds are not very productive, often idiomatic, and their motivation is often related to a metaphor or metonymy that is now obscure. Endocentric structures may be assigned a metaphoric reading, cf. zęb-o-dół ‘tooth socket; lit. tooth-hole’, żyw-o-płot ‘hedge; lit. live-fence’, etc.

3.2.2. Copulative compounds Copulative compounds, such as barak-o-wóz ‘a wooden or tin caravan’ (from barak ‘shed’ and wóz ‘cart’), komedi-o-dramat ‘comedy-drama’, kuchni-o-salon ‘open kitchen; lit. kitchen-living room’ and światł-o-cień ‘chiaroscuro; lit. light-shadow’ may only be based on elements that are grammatically homogenous, thus combinations of a nominal stem with any other stem are impossible. They are always N-type structures (N1+o+N2). The question all cognitive researchers ask is what conceptualisations correspond to these amalgams. Even without referring to psycholinguistic tests it is apparent that the noun barakowóz, for example, is not a simple sum of the two meanings of the words barak + wóz, but a term describing a new concept: ‘something that has the features of a shed (temporary shelter) and a cart (on wheels)’. The relationship between the elements is symmetrical. Apart from an interfix, exocentric compounds contain also suffix co-formatives, cf. rud-o-węglowi-ec ‘ore and coal carrier’, i.e. ‘a ship for transporting ore and coal’. In written form a hyphen may be used instead of an interfix, cf. inżynier-lotnik ‘aeronautical engineer; lit. engineer-pilot’. These structures are relatively free and require inflection on both constituents. This structure is most common in two-element names of places, e.g., Bielsko-Biała (w Bielsku-Białej ‘in Bielsko-Biała’), Szlezwik-Holsztyn ‘SchleswigHolstein’.

156. Polish

2837

3.3. Adjectival compounds 3.3.1. Determinative compounds The formative is usually complex, i.e. an interfix plus a suffix, cf. prawd-o-mów-ny ‘truthful; lit. truth-speaking’, or a “paradigmatic formative” (conversion + adjective inflection) and an interfix, cf. tward-o-głow-y ‘hardliner; lit. hard-headed’ (← twarda głowa). Compounds in which the government of the adjective is conserved are less common, cf. wiary-godny ‘reliable; lit. faith-GEN worthy’ (← godny wiary). The base of the compound is a syntactic determinative phrase, whose head may be a nominal constituent, cf. historia literatury ‘literary history; lit. history literature-GEN’ → historyczn-o-literacki ‘literary-historical’ or a verbal constituent, cf. (co) niesie śmierć ‘(which) brings death’ → śmierci-o-nośny ‘deadly; lit. death-bringing’, (co) daleko sięga ‘(which) reaches far’ → daleko-siężny ‘far-reaching’. Determinative compounds with two adjectival constituents are always head-final, cf. (kościół) rzymsk-o-katolicki ‘Roman Catholic (Church)’ means a Catholic Church of the Roman rite as opposed to grek-o-katolicki ‘Greek Catholic (Church)’, for example. The modifying adjective usually defines the time frame or the scope of the phenomenon, cf. późn-o-romański ‘late Roman’, or the intensity of a feature, cf. ciemn-o-niebieski ‘darkblue’. The verbal element, which can only be placed at the end of the compound, combines most often with a nominal stem in the object function (cf. życi-o-daj-ny ‘lifegiving’), a numeral stem (trój-dzielny ‘three-part’, ob-o-sieczny ‘double-edged’), and an adverbial stem (krótko-trwały ‘short, short-lived; lit. short-perduring’, wszystko-wiedzący ‘omniscient; lit. all-knowing’). Nominal heads appear in combination with adjectival stems (mał-o-miasteczkowy ‘small-town’, cał-o-nocny ‘all-night’), numeral stems (trzydniowy ‘three-day’) and others. The N+N scheme underlies possessive adjectives, cf. jaj-o-głowy lit. ‘eggheaded’, lask-o-nogi lit. ‘stick-legged’, błonk-o-skrzydły ‘(singular for) Hymenoptera; lit. membrane-winged’. The latter group is used also as nouns, especially in the plural form.

3.3.2. Copulative compounds The only possible structures must follow the A+A scheme, and their length, at least theoretically, is infinite, though practically the two-element compounds prevail, cf. (brygada) remontowo-budowlana ‘renovation and construction (team)’ and (placówka) kulturalno-oświatowa ‘cultural and educational (centre)’. They are usually written with a hyphen and the order of the elements reflects iconically the state of affairs that has nothing to do with syntactic hierarchy, cf. (flaga) biało-czerwona ‘white and red flag’ referring to the Polish national flag, but czerwono-biała ‘red and white’ to the flag of Monaco. In rare cases copulative compounds are written without hyphen, among these are the adjectives głuchoniemy ‘deaf and dumb’, cichociemny lit. ‘silent [and] dark (undercover soldiers in WW2 who were trained in Western Europe and dropped secretly on Polish territory)’. The interfix -o- is usually added to the first element. Terminological compounds may feature an abbreviation of the first constituent, either written together or hyphenated, cf. anglo-amerykański ‘Anglo-American’, bałtosłowiański ‘Balto-Slavic’, psychofizyczny ‘psychophysical’. This process usually applies to Greek and Latin roots.

2838

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

3.4. Other compounds Within other word classes composition is a very rare phenomenon. A few existing compound verbs have vague motivation, cf. cudz-o-łożyć ‘to commit adultery’ (from cudzy ‘someone else’s’ and łoże ‘bed’) and zł-o-rzeczyć ‘to curse’ (from zły ‘evil’ and rzec ‘to say’). Genetically these are calques, as shown in the example of lekceważyć ‘to disrespect’ (cf. German gering schätzen), równoważyć ‘to balance’ from równowaga ‘balance’, and zmartwychwstać ‘to rise from the dead; lit. from the dead rise’. Sometimes such forms can be deconstructed, cf. lekceważyć − ważyć lekce ‘to weight lightly’, zmartwychwstać − wstać z martwych ‘to rise from the dead’. Isolated examples may be found in invariable parts of speech, cf. interjections dobranoc! from the phrase dobra noc ‘good night’, dzieńdoberek! from the phrase dzień dobry + diminutive suffix -ek ‘good morning; lit. good day-DIM’, or onomatopoeic stuk-puk ‘knock-knock’ (cf. section 7).

4. Derivation Derivation proper is morphological word-formation that involves the addition of specialised affixes, i.e. prefixes, suffixes, circumfixes, or infixes. In this section, the material is arranged according to the four basic parts of speech.

4.1. Denominal nouns 4.1.1. Prefixation Prefix derivatives, among other things, express antagonism with anty- ‘anti-’ (antypowieść ‘antinovel’, antyfeminizm ‘antifeminism’), kontr- ‘counter-’ (kontrpochód ‘countermarch’, kontrpropozycja ‘counterproposition’), przeciw- ‘anti-/counter-’ (przeciwciało ‘antibody’); antecedent events, formed with pra- (prawykonanie ‘first performance’), pre- (preromantyzm ‘pre-Romanticism’, preselekcja ‘preselection’), proto- (protogwiazda ‘protostar’), przed- ‘pre-’ (przedmecz ‘prematch’, przedbiegi ‘qualifying round’); words meaning ‘outcome or reaction’, such as post- (postkomuna ‘post-Communism’), po- ‘post-/after-’ (ponowoczesność − a calque of postmodernism), neo- (neopogaństwo ‘neopaganism’), de-/dez- (destalinizacja ‘de-Stalinisation’, dezintegracja ‘disintegration’), re- (reedycja ‘new edition’); forms denoting taxonomic hierarchies: nad- ‘super-’ (nadburmistrz ‘Lord Mayor; lit. over-mayor’, nadczłowiek ‘Nietzschean superhuman; lit. overman’), pod- ‘sub-’ (podklasa ‘subclass’, podsekretarz ‘vice secretary; lit. subsecretary’), sub- (subkultura ‘subculture’); quantitative: nad- ‘over-/hyper-’ (nadprodukcja ‘overproduction’, nadczynność ‘overactivity, hyperactivity’), hiper- ‘hyper-’ (hiperinflacja ‘hyperinflation’); and evaluative or intensifying derivatives with arcy- ‘arch-’ (arcydzieło ‘masterpiece; lit. archwork’, arcymistrz ‘champion; lit. archmaster’), hiper‘hyper-’ (hiperpoprawność ‘hypercorrectness’), super- (superfilm, superniania ‘Supernanny’).

156. Polish

2839

The use of prefixes in nominal derivation is increasing mostly due to foreign prefixes. Morphemes borrowed from foreign languages sometimes cause problems of interpretation. Thus elements such as auto-, hiper-, makro-, mega-, mikro-, mini-, multi-, pseudo-, super- are considered to be so-called prefixoids, elements between derivational formatives and stems (in composition). The GWJP (1998: 430) applies the translation test: prefix derivatives are those whose foreign elements have the same meaning as an existing Polish preposition (and corresponding prefix), cf. hiperprodukcja − nadprodukcja ‘hyperproduction − overproduction’. This criterion is not met by auto ‘self’ or neo ‘again’, though prefixes that express the same meaning do exist, cf. neo- and re-.

4.1.2. Suffixation The suffixes listed below are related to various derivational categories: P e r s o n a l n o u n s , e.g., names of professions with an implicit predicate: blach-arz ‘auto-body mechanic’ (← blacha ‘sheet metal’), port-owiec ‘docker’ (← port ‘harbor’), ogrod-nik ‘gardener’ (← ogród ‘garden’), and ryb-ak ‘fisherman; lit. fisher’ (← ryba ‘fish’); names of followers/supporters of concepts, leaders, members of organisations, are often derived from proper names, e.g., franciszk-anin ‘Franciscan’ (← Franciszek), hitler-owiec ‘Hitlerite, referring to Nazis during WW2’, marks-ista ‘Marxist’, piłsudczyk ‘Pilsudski-ite’, including acronyms, cf. ak-owiec ‘AK soldier’ (soldiers of the Armia Krajowa ‘Home Army’, Polish resistance organisation during WW2); names of inhabitants, e.g., wyspi-arz ‘islander’ (← wyspa ‘island’), warszawi-ak ‘resident of Warsaw’ (← Warszawa), południowiec ‘southerner’ (← Południe ‘the South’), Rosj-anin ‘Russian’ (← Rosja), Wietnam-czyk ‘Vietnamese’ (← Wietnam); names of persons, motivated by special attributes or predilections, e.g., brod-acz ‘bearded man’ (← broda ‘beard’), herbaci-arz ‘tea-vendor’ (← herbata ‘tea’), and szalik-owiec ‘football hooligan’ (← szalik ‘scarf (as attribute of a group of fans)’). Within the n o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s , serial derivatives can be observed, i.e. names of soups, vodkas, meals, cakes, hats, fabrics, types of woods, buildings, ships and taxes. They are often formed through univerbation (ellipsis + suffixation) and have double, i.e. nominal and adjectival motivation, cf. czapka do baseballa lit. ‘cap for baseball’ → czapka baseballowa (adj.) ‘baseball cap’ → baseballówka ‘id.’. I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s are rarely derived from nominal bases, cf. -ak in rowiak ‘chisel for making grooves’ (← rowek ‘groove’) and -ownic(a) in frytkownica ‘deep frier’ (← frytka ‘French fry’). A new means of forming derivatives is the suffixoid -(o)mat, cf. tempomat ‘cruise control’, alkomat ‘breathalyzer’. P l a c e n o u n s are represented by derivatives such as kawi-arnia ‘coffee house, café’ (← kawa ‘coffee’), kwiaci-arnia ‘florist’s’ (← kwiat ‘flower’), new sush-arnia ‘sushi bar’, maszyn-ownia ‘engine room’ (← maszyna), kartofl-isko ‘potato field’ (← kartofel ‘potato’), and dziec-iniec ‘nursery’ (← dcieci ‘children’). Nouns expressing s i m i l a r i t y, comprise, e.g., names of buildings: mrowisk-owiec ‘huge apartment block similar to an anthill (Pol. mrowisko)’; botanical names, such as słonecznik ‘sunflower’ (← słońce ‘sun’), and tasiemi-ec ‘tapeworm’ (← taśma ‘tape’). Structures based on metaphor and metonomy also appear in special languages, cf. biological terms such as pałeczkowce ‘bacteria of an elongated shape, similar to a stick’ (← pałeczka ‘stick’).

2840

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

A b s t r a c t n o u n s , i.e. names of qualities, doctrines, positions, and events, are exemplified by bohater-stwo ‘heroism’ (← bohater ‘hero’), dziwac-two ‘weirdness’ (← dziwak ‘weird’), sobk-ostwo ‘selfishness’ (← sobek ‘egoist’), pszczelar-stwo ‘bee-keeping’ (← pszczelarz ‘beekeeper’), marks-izm ‘Marxism’, and humorous wałęs-izm ‘Wałęsa-ism’, profes-ura ‘professorship’, telewizj-ada (← telewizja), parafi-ada (← parafia) − both names of events, referring to a TV fete and a parochial fete, modeled upon olimpiada. C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s : canonical collective names are motivated by nouns naming an element of a set, cf. nauczyciel-stwo ‘teachers’ (← nauczyciel), dzieci-arnia ‘kids’ (← dcieci ‘children’), zwierz-yna ‘game’ (← zwierzę ‘animal’), list-owie ‘foliage’ (← liść ‘leaf’), chuligan-eria ‘hooligans’, aksjomat-yka ‘axiom system’. Names of pairs based on the masculine form are also possible, cf. wuj-ostwo ‘uncle and aunt’ (← wuj(ek)) ‘uncle’, dziadk-owie ‘grandfather and grandmother’ (← dziadek ‘grandfather’), and Nowak-owie ‘the Nowaks’, meaning ‘Nowak and his wife’. S i n g u l a t i v e n o u n s are derived from substance nouns by means of the suffix -k-, cf. blasz-ka ‘plaque’ (← blacha ‘sheet metal’), szkieł-ko ‘a piece of glass’ (← szkło ‘glass’). D i m i n u t i v e s and m e l i o r a t i v e s : there are two semantic types that should be clearly distinguished − those that mean ‘small’ and quasi-diminutives that express the speaker’s attitude. From the semantic point of view one can “downsize” physical parameters, hence names of things are good bases for diminutives: dom-ek ‘little house’ (← dom), szabel-ka ‘small saber’ (← szabla), as well as names of body parts as nos-ek ‘small nose’ (← nos), animals or plants: ryb-ka ‘small fish’ (← ryba), kwiat-ek ‘small flower’ (← kwiat), places: poko-ik ‘tiny room’ (← pokój), etc., but abstract ideas and individual names may not be “downsized” in this way, cf. zdrów-ko ‘health’ (← zdrowie), idej-ka ‘little idea’ (← idea). The attitudes thus expressed range from familiarity, tenderness and empathy on the one side and irony and sarcasm on the other (see article 89 on morphopragmatics in Slavic). A u g m e n t a t i v e s and p e j o r a t i v e s : the semantic feature of these derivatives is the indication of large size that may imply a certain distancing or even dislike towards what is denoted by the base words. The suffixes available are -(i)sk(o), cf. gmasz-ysko ‘huge building’ (← gmach ‘edifice’), -iszcz(e), e.g., tom-iszcze ‘big volume’, -idł(o), and -uch. This category also contains purely expressive nouns indicating a negative attitude, yet sometimes expressing pity, or even sympathy, cf. ps-ina ‘a sad-looking dog’ (← pes ‘dog’), and piśm-idło ‘rag (about a newspaper or magazine)’ (← pismo ‘magazine’), see also sections 6 and 9. F e m a l e p e r s o n a l n o u n s are derived from common and proper nouns referring to men. Regular types contain the formants -k(a), e.g., lekar-ka ‘woman doctor’ (← lekarz ‘doctor’); also -in(i)/-yn(i), e.g., zdrajcz-yni ‘traitoress’ (← zdrajca m.), and -ow(a), e.g., szef-owa ‘lady boss’ (← szef ). The Panslavic affix -ow(a) forms feminine surnames, yet unlike in other Slavic languages it also conveys the woman’s marital status: -ow(a) for wives, -ówn(a) for daughters. A second pair of suffixes -ina/-anka, which may be added to masculine surnames ending with -a is no longer productive. Nouns referring to f e m a l e a n i m a l s are formed with the suffix -ic(a), cf. lw-ica ‘lioness’ (← lew), wilcz-yca ‘she-wolf’ (← wilk), which gives it a pragmatic marking when used for women (biolog-ica ‘female biology teacher, pej.’).

156. Polish

2841

4.1.3. Circumfixation Circumfixation is rarely used in nouns. Among the few post-1989 examples are antyaborcj-onista ‘person who is against abortion (Pol. aborcja)’ and anty-samochodz-izm ‘movement against the use of cars (Pol. samochód)’.

4.2. Deadjectival nouns 4.2.1. Suffixation A b s t r a c t n o u n s : Most prominent in this case are the deadjectival abstract nouns ending with -ość, formed both from simple bases, cf. blad-ość ‘paleness’ (← blady ‘pale’), polsk-ość ‘Polish-ness’ (← polski ‘Polish’), and complex ones, cf. ściągaln-ość ‘collectibility’ (← ściągalny ‘collectible, recoverable’). This category also includes names of illnesses, such as krzyw-ica ‘rickets’ (← krzywy ‘askew, crooked’), żółt-aczka ‘hepatitis’ (← żółty ‘yellow’). The formant -stw(o) appears in nouns denoting people’s activities, such as zawodow-stwo ‘professionalism’ (← zawodowy ‘professional’), and psychological qualities, such as zuchwal-stwo ‘audacity’ (← zuchwały ‘audacious’). N o n - a b s t r a c t n o u n s constitute an open set, cf. prost-ak ‘simpleton’ (← prosty ‘simple’), grub-as ‘fatso’ (← gruby ‘fat’), zielen-ina ‘greens; lit. greenery’ (← zielony ‘green’), szar-ak ‘nonentity (about a person)’ (← szary ‘grey’), and nów-ka ‘something new, e.g., a new car’ (← nowy ‘new’). It is important to distinguish personal from nonpersonal nouns, despite the fact that both classes share the same formants, cf. wyczynowi-ec ‘somebody who specializes in sport competitions’ (← wyczynowy ‘professional’) and komórkowi-ec ‘cell phone, mobile’ (← telefon komórkowy ‘cellular phone’), more often replaced with the univerbation komórka.

4.2.2. Circumfixation The few examples from recent data are: anty-seksual-ista lit. ‘antisexualist’ (← seksualny ‘sexual’), de-solidar-yzacja (← solidarny ‘loyal’, but referring to Solidarność, the political and labor movement), and pro-federal-ista ‘advocate/supporter of federalism’ (← federalny ‘federal’).

4.3. Deverbal nouns A c t i o n n o u n s with the suffixes -ni(e), -ci(e) can be derived from simple verbs, such as czytanie ‘reading’ (← czytać), klikni-ęcie ‘click’ (← kliknąć), or from derived ones, such as programowa-nie ‘programming’ (← programować). Other productive suffixes are -(iz)-acj(a), as in prywatyz-acja ‘privatisation’ (← prywatyzować); -(s/z/c)tw(o), as in dowód-ztwo ‘command, headquarters’ (← dowodzić ‘to command’), budownictwo ‘construction’ (← budować ‘to build’). In many cases the action noun is motivated

2842

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

directly by the agent noun, cf. krytykanc-two ‘nit-picking’ (← krytykant ‘caviller’), lizusostwo ‘bootlicking’ (← lizus ‘bootlicker’), and chodziar-stwo ‘race walking’ (← chodziarz ‘race-walker’), -k(a), as in zbiórka (pieniędzy) ‘collection (of money)’ (← zbierać ‘to collect’), etc. A g e n t n o u n s : traditional affixes like -c(a), cf. odkryw-ca ‘discoverer’ (← otkrywać ‘to open, discover’) and -ciel, cf. oswobodzi-ciel ‘liberator’ (← oswobodzić ‘to liberate’) are losing productivity. New derivatives ending with -acz are close in meaning to denominal nouns motivated by a characteristic feature, cf. potakiwacz ‘a yes-man; lit. one who nods in agreement’ (← potakiwać ← tak ‘yes’), wymyślacz ‘somebody who invents things (mainly due to overactive imagination)’ (← wymyślać ‘to invent’). The same suffix forms, though with decreasing frequency, instrument nouns, names of appliances and machines odkurz-acz ‘vacuum cleaner’ (← odkurzać ‘to vacuum’). P a t i e n t n o u n s : one-place predicates or subjects of the semantic passive voice may become the base for personal nouns referring to patients: zesłaniec lit. ‘exilee’ (← X został zesłany ‘X was exiled’), or to non-personal nouns, cf. lat-awiec ‘kite; lit. flyer’, wisi-or ‘pendant’, stoj-ak ‘stand’, derived from (to, co) lata, wisi, stoi ‘(that which) flies, hangs, stands respectively’. O b j e c t n o u n s and r e s u l t n o u n s : the exponents of this category are the suffixes -k(a) and its variants -anka, -onka, cf. nakręt-ka ‘nut’ (← nakręcać ‘to torque, twist on’), czyt-anka ‘reader (a text or a schoolbook for children)’ (← czytać ‘to read’), mroż-onka ‘frozen food’ (← mrozić ‘to freeze’); -(t)ek, as in doda-tek ‘addition, add-on’ (← dodać ‘to add’); -in(a) as in wydziel-ina ‘secretion’ (← wydzielić ‘to secrete’), dzian-ina ‘knitted fabric’ (← dziać ‘to knit’). Nouns denoting by-products of activities, grammatical pluralia tantum, are formed by the suffixes -iny, e.g., popłucz-yny ‘residue, dregs’ (← popłukać ‘to rinse’), and -ki, e.g., obier-ki ‘peelings’ (← obierać ‘to peel’). I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : apart from the suffixes already mentioned (-arka and -acz), this category takes the formatives -ak, as in czerp-ak ‘scoop’ (← czerpać ‘to scoop’), -nik, as in nadaj-nik ‘transmitter’ (← nadać ‘to transmit’), -nica, as in chłod-nica ‘radiator; lit. cooler’ (← chłodzić ‘to cool’), -aczka, as in wycier-aczka ‘doormat’ (← wycierać ‘to wipe’). Deverbal p l a c e n o u n s are formed with the suffix -ni(a) and its variants -alnia and -arnia, cf. pracow-nia ‘work room, atelier’ (← pracować ‘to work’), sypi-alnia ‘bedroom’ (← sypiać ‘to sleep’), susz-arnia ‘drying room’ (← suszyć ‘to dry’), etc.

4.4. Denominal adjectives 4.4.1. Suffixation Relational adjectives such as chłop-ski (← chłop ‘peasant’), mlecz-ny (← mleko ‘milk’), płaszcz-owy (← płaszcz ‘coat’) indicate the features of one item as opposed to others, e.g., chłopska rodzina ‘peasant family’, mleczny napój ‘milk drink’, płaszczowa wełna ‘wool for coats; lit. coat-REL.ADJ wool’. The function of the formative is to transpose a noun into an adjective. The meaning of the derivative depends on the noun modified by the derivative. Depending on the context, i.e. the head noun, the meaning of the same lexeme may correspond to either a relational or a qualitative adjective, cf. marcowe

156. Polish

2843

zebranie ‘March meeting’ = zebranie w marcu ‘the meeting in March’ and marcowa pogoda ‘weather typical for March’. The relations with the head thus determines the type of meaning, which GWJP (1998: 482 ff.) describes as contextual. The list given in this grammar is problematic, since relational adjectives constitute an open category that increases constantly. The most productive suffix -ow(y) can be applied to loanwords (foreign bases), cf. biznes-owy ‘business’, kolagen-owy ‘collagen’, kompakt-owy ‘compact’. The nouns ending with -cja give rise to adjectives bearing the suffix -n(y) and its variants, cf. prywatyzacyj-ny (← prywatyzacja ‘privatization’), eurokrat-yczny ‘Eurocratic’, and komunij-ny (← komunia ‘(Holy) Communion, particularly with reference to First Holy Communion)’. In derived qualitative adjectives suffixes express s i m i l a r i t y : -owat(y), e.g., beczułkowaty ‘barrel-like’ (← beczułka ‘barrel’), -asty, e.g., gąbczasty ‘spongy’ (← gąbka ‘sponge’), and p o s s e s s i v e meaning (with a quantitative nuance): -ist(y), e.g., gwiaździsty ‘full of stars, starry’ (← gwiazda ‘star’), soczysty ‘juicy’ (← sok ‘juice’).

4.4.2. Circumfixation The few examples are anty-depresyj-ny ‘anti-depressive’ (← depresja ‘depression’), o-włosi-ony ‘hirsute’ (← włos ‘hair’), za-kompleksi-ony lit. ‘complexed, suffering from inferiority complex’ (← kompleks ‘complex’), wy-biedz-ony ‘emaciated, gaunt’ (← bieda ‘poverty’). The prefixes o- and za- express possessive (ornative) meaning (cf. German behaart ‘hirsute’, bemoost ‘mossy’ − see article 134), wy- expresses intensity, exhaustiveness.

4.5. Deadjectival adjectives Their meaning is independent of the noun they modify, i.e. in their derivational paraphrase the modified noun need not figure: malutki ‘very small’ (← mały ‘small’). Three types of formatives occur in this class − prefixes, suffixes, and infixes.

4.5.1. Prefixation Adjectives with a n e g a t i v e element, including the prefix nie- (nie-brzydki ‘not ugly’, nie-głupi ‘not stupid’) are used as a litotes instead of ładny ‘pretty’, mądry ‘smart’, respectively; other prefixes: bez-partyjny ‘non-partisan, independent’, a-moralny ‘immoral’, ir-racjonalny ‘irrational’. Prefixes expressing the i n t e n s i t y of the quality named by the base are: prze-piękny ‘very beautiful’, arcy-ciekawy ‘very, most interesting’, super-szybki ‘superfast’, nad-gorliwy ‘over-zealous’. Adjectives with an a p p r o x i m a t i v e meaning are derived with the prefixes niedo- and przy-: niedo-rozwinięty ‘retarded; lit. under-developed’, przy-ciasny ‘a little tight’. Other types: pra-słowiański ‘Proto-Slavonic’, para-militarny ‘paramilitary’, za-przeszły ‘pluperfect; lit. plupast’ (← przeszły ‘past (tense)’).

2844

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.5.2. Suffixation Adjectives expressing the i n t e n s i t y of the quality named by the base are derived with the suffix -utk(i): malutki ‘really small’ (← mały ‘small’), mięciutki ‘really soft’ (← miękki ‘soft’). Adjectives with an a p p r o x i m a t i v e meaning are usually derived with the suffixes -aw(y) and -it(y): grubawy ‘a bit fat’ (← gruby ‘fat’), zielonkawy ‘greenish’ (← zielony ‘green’), słabowity ‘enfeebled, frail’ (← słaby ‘weak’). E x p r e s s i v e formations, in which the emotional component is the most prominent, are, for instance, mal-uśki, mal-uchny, mal-uni, mal-usi ‘tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule’ (← mały ‘small’).

4.5.3. Infixation Markers of an emotionally intensified meaning of adjectives are the infixes -eń- and -ecz- placed within the suffixes -utki: króci-uteńki ‘very short’ (← krótki), równi-uteńki ‘very straight/even’ (← równy), and -uśki: mal-usieńki ‘very small’ (← mały). Longer chains of such elements are also possible, cf. mal-usi-eniecz-ki ‘really very small’. They are used in baby talk, folk literature, fairy and folk tales.

4.6. Deverbal adjectives In studies on Polish word-formation (cf. GWJP 1998: 471) it is customary to distinguish two types of deverbal adjectives, called “dispositional” and “non-dispositional”. Within these two groups, active (i.e. subject-oriented) and passive (i.e. object-oriented) formations may be distinguished. The dispositional derivatives include adjectives expressing the possibility of an action being carried out (e.g., ulecz-alny ‘curable’ ← uleczyć ‘to cure’) as well as formations expressing a habitual behavior (e.g., ustęp-liwy ‘pliant, acquiescent’ ← ustępować ‘to make concessions to sb.’) or proneness (e.g., chor-owity ‘sickness-prone’ ← chorować ‘to be sick’). In the non-dispositional group the base verb is simply transposed into an adjective without adding further semantic features: ostrzeg-awczy ‘warning, which warns’ (← ostrzegać ‘to warn’), słyn-ny ‘famous’ (← słynąć ‘to be famous’), or object-oriented upraw-ne pole ‘farm land; lit. cultivated land’ (← uprawiać ‘to cultivate’).

4.7. Denominal verbs 4.7.1. Suffixation The separation of this derivation technique is arbitrary, since the available suffixes have at the same time an inflectional character. Thus the derivatives quoted below are more often listed as examples of conversion (“paradigmatic word-formation” according to GWJP, i.e. conversion accompanied by an inflectional ending marking the change of paradigm).

156. Polish

2845

The base noun may be a) the subject of the state or activity named by the derivative, cf. pan-ować ‘to rule; lit. to lord’ (← pan ‘lord’), kucharz-yć ‘to cook’ (← kucharz ‘cook, chef’), sometimes used metaphorically, e.g., matk-ować ‘to mother’ (← matka ‘mother’), chomik-ować ‘to squirrel away, hoard’ (← chomik ‘hamster’); b) a tool, cf. pedał-ować ‘to pedal’ (← pedał), or an object, cf. kartkować ‘to leaf through’ (← kartka ‘sheet of paper’); c) an effected object, cf. dziurk-ować ‘to punch holes’ (← dziurka ‘hole’), filet-ować ‘to fillet, cut into fillets’ (← filet). In addition there is a series of denominal intransitive verbs, e.g., idioci-eć ‘to become stupid’ (← idiota ‘idiot’), kamieni-eć ‘to freeze, turn to stone’ (← kamień ‘stone’), owoc-ować ‘to bear fruit’ (← owoce ‘fruit’). Among the few purely derivational suffixes are -ol-: bieda ‘poverty’ → bied-ol-ić ‘to complain about one’s poor situation’, urząd ‘office’ → urzęd-ol-ić ‘to work (usually incompetently) as an official (pej.)’, and the borrowed -iz-/-yz-: biurokrata → biurokrat-yz-ować ‘to bureaucratise’, etc.

4.7.2. Circumfixation Causative verbs may be derived directly from nouns with a discontinuous formative, consisting of a prefix and a suffix, cf. u-pup-ić ‘1. to ridicule; 2. to kibosh’ (← pupa ‘bottom, buttocks’), za-les-ić ‘to replant a forest; lit. to forest’ (← les ‘forest’), od-grzybić ‘to make mould-free’ (← grzyb ‘fungus, mould’), pod-piwnicz-yć ‘to build with a cellar; lit. under-cellar-SUFF’ (← piwnica ‘cellar’), and with a prefix and the postfix się: na-indycz-yć się ‘to get angry, get the hump’ (← indyk ‘turkey’). (In word-formation processes, się is not considered as reflexive pronoun, but as derivational morpheme − postfix − following the inflectional ending.)

4.8. Deadjectival verbs 4.8.1. Suffixation The following verbs can be regarded as cases of “paradigmatic derivation” (conversion), cf. gorzk-nieć ‘to become bitter’ (← gorzki ‘bitter’), słab-nąć ‘to weaken (itr.)’ (← słaby ‘weak’), słodz-ić ‘to sweeten’ (← słodki ‘sweet’). Deadjectival verbs denote a process that can be defined as ‘to become (be) something’ or ‘to make something be in a certain way’, e.g., banal-iz-ować ‘to make banal’ (← banalny).

4.8.2. Circumfixation The combination of prefixation and paradigmatic derivation serves the purpose of forming causative verbs, such as u-nowocześn-ić ‘to modernize’ (← nowoczesny ‘modern’),

2846

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

u-tajn-ić ‘to make secret’ (← tajny ‘secret’), u-widoczn-ić ‘to make visible’ (← widoczny ‘visible’), od-realn-ić ‘to make unreal’ (← realny ‘real’).

4.9. Deverbal verbs 4.9.1. Prefixation The majority of Polish prefixes are homonymous with prepositions, from which they genetically originate − the only exceptions to this are ob-, prze-, roz-, wy-. The prefixes express the basic spatial categories (directional and locative formations from verbs of movement, cf. po-biec ‘to run (to)’, wy-biec ‘to run out’, o-płynąć ‘to circumnavigate, swim around’, ob-jechać ‘to drive round’) and temporal delimitation, cf. po-czytać ‘to read for a short while’; some derivatives acquire secondary metaphorical meanings (podkupić ‘to gazump; lit. underbuy’, o-płakać ‘to mourn; lit. cry after’). More complex meanings related to changes to the object are possible when the base is a transitive verb, cf. distributive po-spłacać długi ‘to pay off one’s debts (successively)’, cumulative nakupić książek ‘to buy a lot of books’ and others. Aspect plays a crucial role in the formation of verbs. All prefix-bearing verbs are perfective. Prefixes usually convey amalgams of meaning, i.e. apart from the perfective aspect they bring an additional, more or less prominent, meaning (also known as aktionsart). It is however possible to distinguish in a set of derivatives coming from the same base, a verb that is the closest in meaning to that base and differs only in aspect. This is called an aspectual pair, such as pisać (ipf.)/napisać (pf.) ‘to write’.

4.9.2. Suffixation The only possibility in suffix derivation is the substitution or exchange of stem suffixes that are part of the inflectional stem, thus this type of derivation is considered an instance of “paradigmatic word-formation” (conversion), cf. kop-a-ć ‘to kick’ and kop-ną-ć ‘to kick once’. The -ną- element introduces the meaning of the instantaneity of the activity (semelfactivity). Suffixes are also used to backform imperfective forms from perfective verbs, cf. przepisać (pf.) → przepis-ywa-ć (ipf.) ‘to copy’, zapisać → zapis-ywa-ć ‘to write down’.

4.9.3. Postfixation Among the different types there are the postfixal derivatives with the postfix się added, such as the pseudo-transitive spakować się ‘to pack; lit. to pack oneself’, uderzyć się ‘to hit oneself’, intensive verbs such as prosić się ‘to keep asking for something’, as well as instances of backformation through subtraction of the się element, such as cieszyć ‘to please, make happy’ (← cieszyć się ‘to be glad’), martwić ‘to worry somebody’ (← martwić się ‘to worry about’) (cf. section 6).

156. Polish

2847

4.9.4. Circumfixation Discontinuous formatives added to verbal bases are characteristic of diminutive derivatives with the combination po- + -iwa/-ewa, cf. po-płak-iwa-ć ‘to cry a bit, whimper’ (← plakać ‘to cry’), po-bol-ewa-ć ‘to ache of and on’ (← boleć ‘to ache’). A combination of a prefix and a postfix is considered a type of a circumfix, cf. saturative formations with na- + się, such as najeść się ‘to eat one’s fill’ (← jeść ‘to eat’), naczytać się ‘to read to one’s heart’s content; to have read too much with sorry results’ (← czytać ‘to read’), evaluative with roz- + się, such as roz-chorować się ‘to get sick’ (← chorować ‘to be sick’). What they share is the quantitative information about the intensity of a given process.

4.10. Derivation of adverbs 4.10.1. Suffixation Grammars of Polish (e.g., GWJP 1998: 524) distinguish adverbs from homonymous “predicatives” on the basis of the fact that the latter are used with the copula być ‘to be’, cf. pisze ładnie (adv.) ‘(s/he) writes well’ vs. jest ładnie (predicative) ‘(it) is nice outside’. (Predicatives are uninflectable predicates of impersonal (subjectless) sentences, designating, among others, the (mental or physical) state of living beings and natural/ environmental phenomena.) In both cases we are dealing with deadjectival derivatives with the suffixes -e/-o, e.g., wczesny (adj.) ‘early’ → wcześnie ‘early’, dobry ‘good’ → dobrze ‘well’; suchy ‘dry’ → sucho ‘dry, drily’, głupi ‘stupid’ → głupio ‘stupid, stupidly’. Doublets, which are possible mainly with adjectives ending in -isty, may be differentiated functionally (between adverbs and predicatives) provided a copula construction is licensed, cf. mgliście/mglisto ‘foggy’ − wyrażał się mgliście (adverb) ‘he expressed himself vaguely; lit. foggily’ and było mglisto (predicative) ‘it was foggy’.

4.10.2. Circumfixation Structures with a prefix written separately and a suffix that is a genetic ending of the dative case may be interpreted as examples of circumfix derivation. The most common types are po + -u, formed on the basis of adjectives ending with -sk(i), cf. po angielsku ‘in English’, po pańsku ‘in a lordly fashion’; po + -emu, cf. po staremu ‘in the old way’ (← stary ‘old’), po kobiecemu ‘in a feminine way’ (← kobiecy ‘feminine’). Less common are those with z + -a, cf. z francuska ‘after French fashion’, z rzadka ‘rarely’; na + -o, cf. na miękko ‘soft (boiled)’; do + -a, cf. do czysta ‘(till) clean’.

2848

5.

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Conversion

5.1. Nominal conversion 5.1.1. Denominal nouns Conversion within the same part of speech implies a paradigm shift which involves a difference in lexical meaning, e.g., singulare tantum noun → plurale tantum (brud ‘dirt’ → brudy ‘dirty laundry’, dobro ‘goodness’ → dobra ‘goods, possessions’); personal masculine name → feminine name (pan ‘mister’ → pani ‘mistress, Ms.’, also invariable titles such as doktor ‘woman doctor’, minister ‘woman Minister’); branch of science → name of the specialist (fizyka ‘physics’ → fizyk ‘physicist’ ); name of a living creature → name of the offspring (kot ‘cat’ → kocię ‘kitten’, wilk ‘wolf’ → wilczę ‘pup’).

5.1.2. Deadjectival nouns The operation of transforming a syntactically dependent adjective into a noun may be seen as univerbation (ellipsis) of a complex phrase of the A+N type. Formally it is related to the selective category of grammatical gender. Masculine gender may be illustrated by ślepy ‘(the) blind’ from ślepy człowiek ‘blind man’, karny (rzut) ‘penalty (kick)’. Examples of feminine gender are pomidorowa (zupa) ‘tomato (soup)’, żytnia (wódka) ‘rye (vodka)’. Neutral gender cases include, for example, nieznane ‘(the) unknown’, wolne ‘free (time)’. The pluralia tantum form a different group, cf. bliscy ‘one’s close (relatives)’, drobne (pieniądze) ‘coins, change; lit. small (money)’. These nouns retain adjectival inflection, but are reduced to one grammatical gender, which distinguishes them from adjectives. (From the substantivised masculine personal nouns it is possible to form feminine nouns that are separate lexemes, e.g., uczony ‘scholar m.’ → uczona ‘scholar f.’, zmarły ‘deceased m.’ → zmarła ‘deceased f.’. However, this is an example of denominal conversion.) Among the deadjectival nouns there are some abstract nouns that have nominal inflection, such as dobro n. ‘goodness’ (← dobry ‘good’), zdrowie n. ‘health’ (← zdrowy ‘healthy’), and zieleń f. ‘green (colour)’ (← zielony ‘green’).

5.1.3. Deverbal nouns In this type not only the set of endings changes, but also the verbal stem suffix. Nevertheless, its inflectional character is rarely questioned (cf. the interpretation of suffix verbs in section 4.7.1): dźwig-ać ‘to lift, carry’ → dźwig ‘crane’, walcz-yć ‘to fight’ → walka ‘fight’, nos-ić ‘to carry’ → nosze pl. tantum ‘stretcher’.

5.2. Adjectival conversion Denominal adjectives are regularly formed from nouns denoting animals, e.g., kot ‘cat’ → koci ‘cat (adj.)’, owca ‘sheep’ → owczy ‘sheep (adj.)’. Further structures include,

156. Polish

2849

for example, martwica ‘necrosis’ → martwiczy ‘necrotic’, sprawozdawca ‘reporter’ → sprawozdawczy ‘reporting (adj.)’. The issue of participles is deliberately ignored here due to its liminal status between verbal and adjectival forms, as the possible adjectivisation of participles does not trigger changes in their inflectional paradigms.

5.3. Verbal conversion 5.3.1. Denominal verbs In section 4.7.1 we discussed suffixations, which may as well be considered an instance of conversion, cf. sędzia ‘judge’ → sędziować ‘to judge’, król ‘king’ → królować ‘to reign’.

5.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Conversion is used to form inchoative verbs, such as blady ‘pale’ → blednąć ‘to (turn) pale’, stary ‘old’ → starzeć się ‘to grow old’, and causative verbs, cf. biały ‘white’ → bielić ‘to whiten’.

5.3.3. Deverbal verbs Aspectual pairs, in which the difference is based on stem suffixes, cf. kopać (ipf.) − kopnąć (pf.) ‘to kick’, przepisać (pf.) − przepisywać (ipf.) ‘1. to copy (a written text); 2. to prescribe’, belong to different conjugation classes; moreover, perfective verbs do not have a present tense. Hence, it is possible to perceive this as an instance of conversion, if aspect is considered a word-formation and not a grammatical category.

5.4. Adverbial conversion Numerous adverbs are formed on the basis of syntactic phrases. They are either nouns in the instrumental case, e.g., siłą ‘by force’ (nom. siła), wieczorem ‘in the evening’ (nom. wieczór), czasami (instr. pl. of czas ‘time’) ‘from time to time’, or primary prepositional phrases, such as na krzyż ‘crosswise, crossed; lit. on cross’, o czasie ‘on time’.

6. Backformation This word-formation strategy is generally recognised as non-canonical, as it defies the rule of parallelism between form and content: while the derivative is semantically more

2850

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

complex, formally it is not. Thus words such as ławka ‘bench’ or słoik ‘jar’ name typical items from a given set, while ława and słój denote items that are bigger, hence semantically they are more complex. This results in a backformation, the products of which are augmentative forms: ławka → ława, słoik → słój. Genetically the words ławka and słoik are diminutives, but contemporary speakers do not consider them to signify ‘something small’, although the -k- and -ik- fragments are correctly identified with appropriate suffixes. Thus considering examples like ława and słoj a case of backformation is not out of place here. Similar problems arise from a discrepancy between genetic and functional criteria in pairs of words such as niedołęga ‘oaf’ (← niedołężny ‘clumsy, oafish’), beż ‘beige’ (← beżowy ‘beige’). Common, especially in spoken language, is the continuous suppression of the -kelement, cf. stówa (← stówka ‘a hundred’), or -ek, cf. małolat ‘a youth’ (← małolatek ‘underage’). The multifunctional -k-affixes may be associated with diminutives. The shortened forms sound harsher and fit better the ambience of a youth culture.

7. Reduplication Reduplication is common in baby-talk (tata ‘dad’, am-am ‘to eat’) and is also prominent in children’s literature. Bańko (2008: 89−90) distinguishes exact reduplications: bumcyk-cyk ‘repeated quick rhythmic movement, also percussion music’, dylu-dylu ‘fiddle folk music’, gadu-gadu ‘prolonged, idle talk’ and non-exact reduplications: rach-ciach ‘quick movement, usually when insisting that something is done quickly’. Onomatopoeic exclamations are also used to mimic sounds: chi-chi (laughter), gul-gul (gulping), chrumchrum (oinking of pigs), tra-ta-ta (trumpet). Despite their iconicity the linguistic form is completely conventionalised. Bańko’s model can also be applied to other parts of speech; cf. exact reduplications in adjectives like tyci-tyci ‘very small’, and adverbs like ledwo ledwo ‘barely’, jako tako ‘so-so’, whereas non-exact repetitions use rhyme as a means of expression, cf. the nominal reduplication elegancja-francja ‘posh elegance; lit. elegance-France’.

8. Blending Blends in Polish are rare and primarily nominal, such as (urlop) tacierzyński ‘paternal leave’ (← tata ‘dad’ + macierzyński ‘maternal’), chłopela (← chłopcy ‘boys’ + kapela ‘band’) as an attempt to replace the English boys band. Numerous examples are ascribed to authors, such as Przyboś’s terroretyk (terror + teoretyk ‘theoretician’). Blending is also common in the daily press, cf. Ubekistan (Urząd Bezpieczeństwa (UB) ‘Polish secret police during communism’ + Uzbekistan). The merger is based on similarity in sound: the two words share a segment which is recognised in the derivative as the so-called contamination node (or blending locus), cf. reżymieszek (← reżym ‘regime’ + rzezimieszek ‘criminal, thug’). This gives rise to problems in identifying some formations as instances of blending, cf. gimbus ‘middle school coach’ (← gimnazjum ‘middle school’

156. Polish

2851

+ autobus ‘bus, coach’). Despite the lack of a shared segment, I would consider words such as gimbus an example of blending.

9. Clipping Another form of backward derivation is clipping (subtraction). The deletion of elements occurs without any regularity and is therefore unpredictable. It is a realisation of the tendency, particularly in the spoken language, for briefness and expressive value, cf. in adolescent slang impra instead of impreza ‘party’, promo (← promocja ‘promotion’), dyr (← dyrektor ‘headmaster’). Clipping is often accompanied by alternations, among which depalatalisation, i.e. the replacement of s, sz, ś, ż with the velar ch is the most common, cf. artys-ta → artycha ‘artist’, cias-tko → ciacho ‘cake’, poraż-ka → poracha ‘failure’. A reverse type of alternations involving palatalisation is present in clippings, such as fac-et → facio ‘guy’, rącz-ka ‘hand-DIM’ (← ręka ‘hand’) → rąsia ‘hand’, expressing tenderness, but also irony or sarcasm.

10. Word-creation In Polish one can find only few examples, mainly among chrematonyms, such as bistor (a type of polyester fabric), ixi (a brand name for a washing powder), melex (a small electric car produced in a factory in the town of Mielec, also to be exported, which explains the -ex element, the mel- element also does not seem accidental), the name of the oil company Orlen, and the colloquial miglanc ‘a lazy person’.

11. References Bańko, Mirosław 2008 Współczesny polski onomatopeikon. Ikoniczność w języku. Warszawa: WN PWN. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan 1974 Dzieła wybrane. Vol. 1. Warszawa: PWN. Benni, Tytus 1905 Beiträge zur polnischen Wortbildung. Vol. 1: Einführung. Produktive Personalsuffixe. Leipzig: Stauffer. Brodowska-Honowska, Maria 1967 Zarys klasyfikacji polskich derywatów. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Doroszewski, Witold 1946 Kategorie słowotwórcze. Sprawozdania TNW. Section 1, 39: 20–42. Doroszewski, Witold 1952 Podstawy gramatyki polskiej. Warszawa: PWN. Grzegorczykowa, Renata 1972 Zarys słowotwórstwa polskiego. Słowotwórstwo opisowe. Warszawa: Wyd. UW. Grzegorczykowa, Renata and Jadwiga Puzynina 1979 Słowotwórstwo współczesnego języka polskiego. Rzeczowniki sufiksalne rodzime. Warszawa: PWN.

2852

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

GWJP = Grzegorczykowa, Renata, Roman Laskowski and Henryk Wróbel (eds.) 1998 [1984] Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia. Warszawa: WN PWN. Jadacka, Hanna 2001a System słowotwórczy polszczyzny (1945–2000). Warszawa: WN PWN. Jadacka, Hanna (ed.) 2001b Słownik gniazd słowotwórczych współczesnego języka ogólnopolskiego. Vol. 2: Gniazda odrzeczownikowe. Kraków: Universitas. Kurzowa, Zofia 1976 Złożenia imienne we współczesnym języku polskim. Warszawa: PWN. Laskowski, Roman and Henryk Wróbel 1964 Użycie paradygmatu w funkcji formantu słowotwórczego we współczesnej polszczyźnie. Język Polski 44: 214−220. Łoś, Jan 1914 Složnyja slova v pol’skom jazyke. Sankt-Peterburg: Trenke i Fjusno. Łoś, Jan 1922−27 Gramatyka polska. Part 2: Słowotwórstwo. Lwów: Ossolineum. Małecki, Antoni 1863 Gramatyka języka polskiego większa. Lwów: Nakł. Autora. Puzynina, Jadwiga 1969 Nazwy czynności we współczesnym języku polskim. Słowotwórstwo, semantyka, składnia. Warszawa: Wyd. UW. Rozwadowski, Jan 1904 Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung. Heidelberg: Winter. Skarżyński, Mirosław (ed.) 2004 Słownik gniazd słowotwórczych współczesnego języka ogólnopolskiego. Vol. 3: Gniazda odczasownikowe. Kraków: Universitas.

Alicja Nagórko, Berlin (Germany)

157. Kashubian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Minor processes of word-formation References

Abstract Kashubian, a West Slavic language, is spoken in the northern part of Poland. Since 2005 Kashubian has enjoyed legal protection as an official regional language. The article presents an overview of the main patterns of Kashubian word-formation, the most pro-

157. Kashubian

2853

ductive of which is derivation. In comparison to Polish, it has preserved some archaic features. Kashubian is characterized by widespread derivational synonymy and a exuberant system of diminutives and hypocoristics (including verbs). Blending and clipping are less common.

1. Introduction Passing over casual references to Kashubian and discussions about its status, precise scientific research concerning the Kashubian language, including word-formation, goes back to Friedrich Lorentz (1870−1937), especially to his works Slovinzische Grammatik [Slovincian grammar] (1903) and Gramatyka pomorska [Pomeranian Grammar] (1958− 62 [1927−34]). The second volume (1959) of this grammar includes word-formation and is therefore most important for our purposes. In 1953, studies on Pomeranian dialects of the left-bank of the Vistula River were taken up by the so-called Second Dialectological Laboratory of the Polish Academy of Sciences (II Pracownia Dialektologiczna PAN) under the direction of Zdzisław Stieber. The result of these studies is the Atlas językowy kaszubszczyzny i dialektów sąsiednich [Atlas of the Kashubian language and adjacent dialects], in this article referred to as AKL, which has been compiled by a department of the Institute of Slavic studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences under the direction of Stieber (Introduction, vol. 1−6) and Popowska-Taborska (vol. 7−15) (Wrocław 1954− 1978). Zawadzka dealt with lexis and word-formation (vol. 15: 330−342). Breza worked out Kashubian word-formation for practical needs, particulary for schools. In a joint publication with Treder, Gramatyka Kaszubska. Zarys popularny [Kashubian grammar. A popular outline] (Breza and Treder 1981), Breza drew upon his own field studies and analyses of Kashubian literary texts as well as the above-mentioned titles.

2. General overview 2.1. Regional differentiation and specific traits of Kashubian Until recently Kashubian was the language spoken in family communication, used by peasants, workers and local intelligentsia, and it varied greatly regionally. Lorentz singled out as many as 56 dialects; according to AKL, there are four variants: Northern Kashubian, Middle Kashubian, Southern Kashubian and the so-called Zaborze (← za Borami (Tucholskimi) ‘behind the Tuchola Forest’) in parishes of the Chojnice district: Borzyszkowy, Brzeźno Szlacheckie, Borowy Młyn, and Lipnica. Due to the regional differentiation Kashubian shows some specific traits such as the following: a) Rich synonymy, which also shows up in word-formation. Derivatives are formed with different suffixes from the same root, e.g., nouns: bùszón and bùszôk ‘braggart, big-head’, cedzëdło and cedzka ‘dish for straining milk’, czkawica and czkôwka ‘hiccups’, drôbka and drabina ‘ladder’, gùlôk, gùlôcz, gùlôrz ‘turkey’, kòsznik, kòszôrz, kòszikôrz ‘basket-weaver’, kùrzawa, kùrzatwa, kùrzawica ‘snowstorm’, òska, òsëna, òsëca ‘aspen’, and many more. This also applies to adjectives (e.g., kòni, kòńsczi

2854

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic ‘referring to horses’, krowi, krówsczi ‘referring to cows’) and adverbs (e.g., pózdze, pózno ‘late’). Addition of diminutive and hypocoristic suffixes not only to nouns and adjectives, but also to pronouns and verbs: 1) among nominal diminutive-hypocoristic suffixes from the south of Kashubia we need to mention -uszek: dzbanuszek (← dzbón and dzbón(e)k ‘jug, small jug’), dzwonuszek (← dzwón and dzwón(e)k ‘bell, small bell’), kwiatuszek (← kwiat and kwiat(e)k ‘flower, small flower’), tatuszek (← tata ‘dad’), also in hypocoristic forms of names: Éduszek (← Éd(e)k ← Edward), Franuszek (← Fran(e)k ← Francëszk); 2) examples of diminutive adjectives: daleczczi (← daleczi ‘far’), wësoczczi (← wësok/wësoczi ‘high, tall’); 3) diminutive adverbs, e.g.: daleczkò (← dalek/dalekò ‘far’), wësoczkò (← wësok/wësokò ‘high’); dopiérkù (← dopiéru ‘not until’); 4) diminutive pronouns, e.g.: dotądk/dotądka (← dotąd ‘up to now, up to here’), stądka (← stąd ‘from here’), nick (← nic ‘nothing’); and, finally, 5) examples of diminutive verbs: dôjczkac (← dôjkac and dôwac ‘to give’), jidzkac (← jic ‘to go, walk’), róbkac (← robic ‘to do, work’). The suffix -iczé and extended -owiczé, deriving collective nouns for plants, are known only in Kashubian: besowiczé ‘sprigs of lilac’ (← bes ‘lilac’), brzozowiczé ‘branches of birch’ (← brzoza ‘birch’), ówsniczé ‘porridge, oat straw’ (← óws/òwies ‘oat’), etc. The suffix -ëszcze or -iszcze (and its variants) is known in all Slavic languages, but in contemporary Kashubian it appears only in the North: bùlwòwiszcze/bùlewiszcze ‘potato field’ (← bùlwë ‘potatoes’), klepiszcze ‘threshing floor’ (← klepac ‘to thresh with flails’), kòsëszcze ‘scythe handle’ (← kòsa ‘scythe’), and many more; in our times this suffix is being displaced by suffix -iskò. The prefix są-, unknown in Old Polish, but known to Old Czech, appears today only in Lower Sorbian and in the North of the Kashubia region. It forms names for females of domestic animals, e.g., sąbagnô ‘gravid, big with young’ (← bagnô ‘expecting to give birth’), sącelnô ‘in calf’ (← celnô ‘expecting a calf’), sąprosnô ‘in pig’ (← prosnô ‘expecting a pig’). This prefix also appears in the noun sąsôd ‘neighbour’ (← sadnąc ‘to sit down’) and in the name of a town in Krajna (the region north of Great Poland): Sępólno (← pòle ‘field’ + suffix -no). The archaic prefix nô- forms the superlative of adjectives and adverbs: nôkrótszi (adj.) ‘shortest’ (← krótszi ‘shorter’), nôkrócy (adv.) ‘shortest’ (← krócy ‘shorter’); nôlepszi (adj.) ‘best’ (← lepszi ‘better’), nôlepi (adv.) ‘best’ (← lepi ‘better’). The historical suffix -ô (originally, it is an inflection ending) appears in abstract quality nouns: niżô ‘bottom, depth’ (← nisczi ‘short, low, deep’), szërzô ‘breadth, width’ (← szëroczi ‘broad, wide’), wiżô ‘height’ (← wësoczi ‘high, tall’). This historical suffix appears in many nouns alternatively with -awa, e.g., niżawa ‘depth’, szérzawa ‘breadth’, wiżawa ‘height’. There are also other nouns such as durawa ‘scruff’ (← dura ‘hole’), the surname Céniawa, today Ceynowa (← céń ‘shadow, shade’), and others. The same applies to nouns ending in -niô (< Common Slavonic -ьnja), such as kòpniô ‘a place without snow’ and ‘freezing snowfree weather’, kùzniô ‘blacksmith’s’ (← kùc ‘to hammer, hew’), patelniô ‘frying pan’, and others. These examples, however, are analysed in etymological dictionaries and in historical grammars, as they are etymologically blurred.

In Kashubian, similarly to other Slavic languages, the main and most frequent way of enriching lexis is by derivation. Composition, which is characteristic for Germanic lan-

157. Kashubian

2855

guages, is far less frequent, compare, e.g., Kashubian dożinczi ‘harvest festival’ (← dożinac ‘to finish harvesting’) and German Erntedankfest ‘thanksgiving festival for harvest’ (← Ernte ‘harvest’, danken ‘to thank’, Fest ‘festival’).

2.2. Recent language situation Kashubian, as has been stated already, was a folk language, spoken by peasants and labourers as well as the local intelligentsia. Writers and poets used it in their literary works. The characteristic features of Kashubian can be first observed in the translation of Luther’s Catechism by the pastor of Bytów, Szymon Krofej, and in other religious texts from the 16th−17th century. The first to write exclusively in Kashubian was the writer and civil-rights activist Florian Ceynowa (1817−1881). Since 2005, when the Polish government adjudicated Kashubian the status of a regional language, Kashubian has gradually been used in government offices and taught in schools. It is an official alternative language for local administration purposes in the municipalities of Sierakowice and Parchowo (Pomeranian Voivodeship). In the 2011 census, 106,000 people in Poland declared that they mainly use Kashubian at home. All Kashubian speakers are also fluent in Polish. Kashubian is also used in the Roman Catholic liturgy, especially as far as the Holy Mass is concerned, in the Eucharist of Catechumens (from the beginning until oblation), and it is only during events organized by the Kashubian-Pomeranian Association that the whole Mass can be read in Kashubian, also the Holy Mass of Believers (canon). In 2006, with the objective of standardization, the “Kashubian Language Board” was established. The Board’s “Committee of Standardization and Normalization of the Kashubian Language” determines linguistic normativity/correctness and has already compiled vocabulary and terminology of sports, mathematics, public administration, grammar, and literature. Future work is devoted to religious vocabulary. Within the Board, different, often opposite tendencies are represented. They concern, for instance, the application of phonetic amendments to words so that they do not sound like their Polish equivalents. For instance, some would like to write autoł instead of auto ‘car’ although it is a clipped variant of a neoclassical coinage adapted in many languages (cf. Am.-Engl. automobile, Russ. avtomobil’), or mieszkeńc ‘inhabitant’ instead of mieszkańc (Pol. mieszkaniec), chùr ‘choir’ instead of chór (Polish) as was proposed by the Kashubian poet Jan Trepczyk. Others would like to substitute the Latin suffix -ismus by the multifunctional Kashubian suffix -izna/-ëzna, and abstract words such as socjalizm ‘socialism’, romantyzm ‘romanticism’, chrystianizm ‘Christianity’, archaizm ‘archaism’ would be changed into socjalizna, romantëzna, christianizna, archaizna, etc. The author of this article, chairman of the “Kashubian Language Board” as well as of the “Committee of the Standardization and Normalization of the Kashubian Language” since its foundation (see above), believes that in Kashubian − like in other West European languages − there is place for internationalisms such as the previously mentioned example of the suffix -ismus (Kashubian form -izm), and others. Some members of the Board are also divided by their attitude towards words of German origin: in the opinion of the author of this article and the majority of the members of the Board, German loans, dating back to the Middle Ages or to the 19 th century, have every right

2856

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

to exist in Kashubian, whereas words absorbed during Nazi occupation should be avoided. In Trepczyk’s dictionary (Trepczyk 1994) there are also words of so-called hidden German origin or loanwords mediated by German, for example, humerala (Germ. Humerale, Lat. (h)umerale) ‘amice’ (a white scarf that the priest puts either on his shoulders or under the alba to celebrate the Holy Mass) adapted/translated into Polish as humerał, which should be accepted by Kashubian speakers as humerôł, gen. -ału. For further information see also Breza (2001), Lubaś (2002).

3. Composition The formation of compounds is not characteristic of Kashubian. Juxtaposition and adjacent cases are included into section 3.3.

3.1. Determinative compounds The following types of compounds, including synthetic compounds, are attested: Nominal e n d o c e n t r i c compounds with the linking vowel (interfix) -o-, e.g., A+N: wielgòbaba ‘giantess, a character from Kashubian tales’ (← wielgô baba ‘big woman’), wielgòrëba ‘whale’ (←wielgô rëba ‘big fish’). A formation such as srakòbitnik ‘teacher’ can be described in two ways: a) as a nominal compound N+N (← sraka ‘bottom’ + bitnik ‘beater’); bitnik could have been borrowed from Polish where it is attested, for instance, in Adam Mickiewicz’s Dziady [Forefathers’ Eve] (1832), or b) as a synthetic compound where neither the combination of the first two components nor that of the last two components exists as an independent word: N+V+SUFF: srakòbitnik (← sraka ‘bottom’ + bic ‘to beat’) (see article 33 on synthetic compounds in German). Some compounds of the type N+V+ZERO-SUFF go back to loan translations, e.g., wodowzdrig ‘hydrophobia’ (← woda ‘water’ + wzdrig- verbal stem ‘to repulse’ + 0̸). Other types of Kashubian synthetic compounds are, e.g., Adv+N+SUFF: darmòchlébc ‘scrounger, idler; lit. for nothing/freely[eating]-bread-AGENT’ (← darmò [jedzący] chléb) and Adv+V+SUFF: darmòzjôdca ‘scrounger, idler; lit. for nothing/freely-eat-er’ (← darmò zjesc lit. ‘for nothing/freely-eat’), darmòzjédz ‘a child not able to work yet; lit. for nothing/freely-eat-er’ (← darmò zjesc lit. ‘for nothing/freely eat’). Nominal e x o c e n t r i c compounds with the interfix -i-/-ë- mostly have the structure V+N: gònidiôbeł ‘drifter; lit. chase-devil’ (← gonic diôbła ‘to chase the devil’), kòpikùlka ‘gravedigger; lit. dig-grave’ (← kòpac kùlczi ‘to dig holes’), Płaczëbóg ‘Good Friday’ (← płacze Bóg lit. ‘God is crying’), wëdrzëgrosz ‘swindler; lit. snatch-penny’ (← wëdrzéc grosz ‘to snatch a penny’), wëstawinoga ‘poser’ (← wëstawic nogã ‘to stick a leg out’). As example of an exocentric compound of the structure A+N may serve żëwòkòsc ‘comfrey (bot.), Symphytum officinale’ (← żëwô kòsc ‘living bone’). Adjectival determinative compounds are formed with the interfix -o-, e.g., A+A: starodôwny ‘very old’ (← stari ‘old’ + dôwny ‘ancient’). There are also synthetic adjectival compounds, cf. A+N+SUFF: staroczesny ‘antique’ (← stari czas ‘old time’), wielgòrodny ‘of noble background, of aristocratic descent’ (← wieldżi ród ‘great family’). Some

157. Kashubian

2857

adjectives of this type have become nominalized: wielgòbani ‘cod; lit. bigheaded’ (← wielgô bania ‘big head’), wielgògłowi ‘id.’ (← wielgô głowa ‘big head’).

3.2. Copulative compounds In Kashubian word-formation, the following examples, which could be classified as nominal copulative compounds, are usually treated as juxtapositions because of the lack of a linking vowel, e.g., pszen-żëto ‘wheat-rye’ (← pszénica ‘wheat’ and żëto ‘rye’), kùp-przedôwk ‘purchase and selling’ (← kùpic ‘to buy’ and przedac ‘to sell’). Some examples contain repetitive elements, e.g., hôczi-pôczi ‘stuff’ (← hôk ‘hook’ and a rhyming word), cuda-niewida ‘unusual, extraordinary things’ (← cud ‘wonder’ and a word derived from nie widzec ‘to not see’), czarë-marë or less often czar-mar (← czarë ‘witchcraft, casting spells’ and marë ‘dreams, chimeras’). As the second element differs from the first in sound shape (and, in some cases, in meaning) we do not regard them as reduplication (see section 7). In formations like białka aniół (← białka ‘woman’ and anioł ‘angel’) and aniół stróż ‘guardian angel; lit. angel guardian’ the second element serves as metaphoric characterization or as specification of the first, whereas chłopbiałka ‘hermaphrodite’ (← chłop ‘man’ and białka ‘woman’) shares the properties of co-compounds (see article 40). Adjectival copulative compounds are represented by formations such as biôło-czerwiony ‘white and red’, czôrno-biôłi ‘black and white’, pòlskò-anielsczi ‘Polish-English’, nordowó-zôpadny ‘north-western’.

3.3. Juxtaposition In juxtapositions, i.e. syntagmatic compounds, each part preserves its separate accent, their sequence is fixed, and it is impossible to insert an additional element, e.g., maszina do pisaniégò ‘typewriter; lit. machine for writing-GEN’, but not: *maszina do chùtczégò (‘fast’) pisaniégò. Examples of juxtapositions, consisting of a d j e c t i v e s and n o u n s , are: Bòżé Narodzenié ‘Christmas’ (← Bòżé narodzenié ‘Christ’s birth; lit. God-POSS.ADJ birth’), Zełoné Swiãta/Swiątczi ‘Whitesuntide, Pentecost, Pinkster’ (← zelóné swiãta lit. ‘green feast’), dzëkô róża ‘wild rose’ (← dzëkô róża ‘wild rose’), wilczé grzëbë ‘inedible mushrooms; lit. wolf-REL.-POSS.ADJ mushroom’ (← wilczy ‘wolf (adj.)’ + grzib ‘mushroom’). Other juxtapositions consist of p r o n o u n s and n o u n s , e.g., Wszëtczich Swiãtich ‘All Saints Day’ (← wszëtczich swiãtich ‘All Saints; lit. all-GEN saints-GEN’). Adjacent cases are contractions with one accent and unhyphenated spelling: półbrat ‘step brother; cousin; lit. half brother’ (← pół brata ‘half of a brother’), półsostra ‘step sister, cousin; lit. half sister’ (← pół sostrë ‘half of a sister’), tcëgòdny/tczëgòdny ‘esteemed’ (← gòdny tcë/tczë ‘estimable; lit. honour-GEN worthy’), Wielganoc ‘Easter’ (← wielgô noc ‘big night’).

2858

4.

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Derivation

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Denominal nouns There are numerous nouns formed by prefixes, which express the following meanings: a) Temporal: pò- ‘after’, e.g., pògrzmòt ‘echo of a remote thunderclap’ (← grzmòt ‘thunderclap’); b) Local: ù- ‘on; against’, e.g., ùbrzég ‘steep bank of a river or lake’ (← brzég ‘bank’), za- (local: ‘behind’): obsolete zakrzew ‘brushwood, bushes’ (← krzew ‘bush, shrub’), toponyms such as Zamòstë (← mòstë ‘bridges’), village in the district of Puck, Zatrzebùń (compare Trzebùń, village in the district of Kościerzyna); c) Local and temporal: pòd- ‘under-; before, near’, e.g., pòdgóra ‘under, near the mountain’ (← góra ‘mountain’), obsolete pòdjôda ‘snack’ (← jôda ‘meal, food’), pòdlato ‘May, June and pre-harvest period’ (← lato ‘summer’), pòdpôcha ‘under armpit’ (← pôcha ‘armpit’), pòdżoka ‘patch under the stocking’ (← żoka ‘foot of a stocking’). The prefix is often used in names of little villages, e.g., Podlas (← las ‘wood’). Suffixes in turn are more varied semantically. The are mainly used to realize the following derivational categories: a) P e r s o n a l n o u n s , most of which are names of professions: -ôk: flisôk ‘rafter’ (← flis ‘floating merchandise’), rëbôk ‘fisher’ (← rëba ‘fish’), smòlôk ‘tar maker’ (← smoła ‘tar’); -ôrz: aptékôrz ‘pharmacist’ (← aptéka ‘pharmacy’), blachórz ‘metalsmith’ (← blacha ‘metal sheet’), kòszikôrz ‘basket maker’ (← kòszik ‘basket’); -ik and its variant -nik: basnik ‘teller of fairy-tales’ (← basniô ‘tale’), ògrodnik ‘gardener’ (← ògród ‘garden’), klucznik ‘man who holds the keys, steward’ (← klucz ‘key’), tan(i)ecznik ‘dancer’ (← tan(ie)c ‘dance’); -ańt: fabrikańt ‘manufacturer’ (← fabrika ‘factory’), mùzëkańt ‘musician’ (← mùzëka ‘music’), pòlicjańt ‘policeman’ (← pòlicjô ‘police’); -ista: bąblista ‘drummer’ (← bąbel ‘drum’), ewangelista ‘Evangelist’ (← Ewangeliô ‘Gospel’), kawalerzësta ‘cavalryman’ (← kawaleriô ‘cavalry’); -ówc: bratówc ‘brother’s son, nephew’ (← brat ‘brother’), s(z)makówc ‘connoisseur of food’ (← s(z)maka ‘taste, appetite’), szpiegówc ‘spy’ (← szpiég ‘spy’). Other personal nouns characterize persons according to some salient attribute: -ôcz: brodôcz ‘man with a big beard’ (← broda ‘beard’), brzëchôcz ‘person with a big belly’ (← brzëch ‘belly, stomach’) (compare brzëchôl), òkôcz ‘man with big eyes’ (← òkò ‘eye’), wargôcz ‘man with protruding lips’ (← warga ‘lip’); -ôk: biédôk ‘poor person’ (← biéda ‘poverty’), dzëwôk ‘freak’ (← dzyw ‘strange thing’), gniélôk ‘layabout’ (← gniéla ‘lazy person’), plapôk ‘chatterbox’ (← plapa ‘face’ (pej.)); -ôl: nogôl ‘man with long legs’ (← noga ‘leg’), nosôl ‘man with a long nose’ (← nos ‘nose’), ùchôl ‘man with big ears’ (← ùchò ‘ear’), wąsôl ‘man wearing a moustache’ (← wąs ‘moustache’); -ówc: domówc ‘family friend’ (← dom ‘house’), jadówc ‘man who says unkind, nasty things’ (← jôd ‘poison’);

157. Kashubian

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

2859

-nik: biédnik ‘poor person’ (← biéda ‘poverty’ ), dłëżnik ‘debtor’ (← dług ‘debt’), łepnik ‘man with a big head’ (← łeb ‘head’ (pej.)), tobacznik ‘snuffer’ (← tobaka ‘snuff’); -uch: piecuch/piecëch ‘person who easily gets cold (that’s why he loves a stove)’ (← piec ‘stove’), smroduch ‘person who smells bad’ (← smród ‘stench’); swińtuch ‘slob’ (← swinia ‘pig’); -us: garbus ‘person with a hump’ (← gôrb ‘hump’), gajdus ‘tall-legged person’ (← gajdë ‘legs’), gniélus ‘layabout’ (← gniéla ‘lazy person’), pòkrakus ‘monster, awful-looking person’ (← pòkraka synonym of pòkrakus). (Formations derived from adjectives are more frequent in the category of personal nouns denoted according to a characteristic feature, see section 4.1.2). Names of i n h a b i t a n t s and m e m b e r s of administrative units or other organisations: -ón: krajewión ‘inhabitant of the mainland (in contrast to the inhabitants of the Hel Peninsula in the North of Gdańsk)’ (← kraj here: ‘mainland’), mieszczón ‘townsman’ (← miasto ‘town’), parafión ‘parishioner’ (← parafiô ‘parish’), wiesón ‘inhabitant of a village’ (← wies ‘village’), bãdominión ‘inhabitant of Bãdomin’ (← Bãdomin − the village of birth of Józef Wybicki, the author of the Polish national anthem), gdinión ‘inhabitant of Gdynia’ (← Gdiniô), dominikón ‘Dominican’, francëszkón ‘Franciscan’; -ôk: kaliszôk ‘inhabitant of Kalisz’, lëpùszôk ‘inhabitant of Lëpùsz’, trzebùniôk ‘inhabitant of Trzebùń’ (all villages are situated in the district Kościerzyna). The suffix -ón predominates in the North of Kashubia, the suffix -ôk in the South. F e m a l e n o u n s derived from masculine nouns: -ka: biédôczka ‘poor woman’ (← biédôk ‘poor man’), karczmôrka ‘innkeeper f.’ (← karczmôrz), sąsôdka ‘neighbour f.’ (← sąsôd), wnuczka ‘granddaughter’ (← wnuk ‘grandson’), Nowaczka ‘Nowak’s wife’ (← Nowak), Szrederka ‘Szreder’s wife’ (← Szreder); -ina/-ëna: chwôlczëna ‘woman who praises’ (← chwôlca ‘man who praises’), dorôdczëna ‘advisor f.’ (← dorôdca m.), rządczëna ‘bailiff f.’ (← rządca m.), wzérczëna ‘caretaker f.’ (← wzérca m.). Names of female animals are also derived with -ëna: òslëna ‘mare’ (← òseł ‘donkey’), wôłczëna ‘she-wolf’ (← wôłk ‘wolf’), zajczëna ‘female hare’ (← zajc ‘hare’); -ica, -ëca: diôblëca ‘she-devil’ (← diôbeł ‘devil’), drągalëca ‘tall woman’ (← drągôl ‘tall man’), grzésznica ‘sinner f.’ (← grzésznik), òtroczëca ‘daughter’ (← òtrok ‘son’), pòmòcnica ‘helper f.’ (← pòmòcnik), wilczëca ‘she-wolf’ (← wilk ‘wolf‘); for gender conversion see section 5.1. M a l e n o u n s derived from female nouns: gapior ‘crow (m.)’ (← gapa), gąsór ‘gander’ (← gãs ‘goose’), kôczór ‘drake’ (← kaczka ‘duck’), rarely -ôrz, e.g., gúlôrz ‘turkey’ (← gúła ‘turkey hen’) and -ón, cf. kurón ‘cock’ (← kura ‘hen’) and gúlón ‘turkey’ (← gúła ‘turkey hen’). Denominal i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : -nik: gòdzënnik ‘watch’ (← gòdzëna ‘hour’), rãcznik ‘towel’ (← rãka ‘hand’); -iskò/ -iszcze: batożëskò or older batożëszcze ‘whipstock’ (← batóg ‘whip’), grablëskò ‘rake handle’ (← grable ‘rake’), kòsëskò ‘scythe handle’ (← kòsa ‘scythe’), szëflëskò ‘spade handle’ (← szëfla ‘spade’). Place nouns: -iskò or older -iszcze: bùlwiskò or bùlwiszcze ‘potato field’ (← bùlwë ‘potatoes’), cëbùlëskò ‘patch where onions grew’ (← cëbùla ‘onion’), kretowiskò ‘molehill’ (←

2860

g)

h)

i)

j)

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic kret ‘mole’), marchwiskò ‘patch where carrots grew’ (← marchew ‘carrot’), ówsëskò ‘oat field’ (← óws ‘oat’), piecëskò ‘place where there was a stove’ (← piec ‘stove’), compare also the name of the village Pieczyska. It is a specific feature of Kashubian word-formation that -iskò and -iszcze denote a place where sth. existed, grew, etc., in the past. Places/fields where, for instance, carrots or turnips usually grow are denoted by combinations of relational adjectives and nouns, e.g., marchewny zôgon ‘carrot field’ or bruczewné pòle ‘turnip field’; -nik: chlébnik ‘bag for bread’ (← chléb ‘bread’), gãsnik ‘geese shed’ (← gãs ‘goose’), gòlãbnik’ ‘pigeonry’ (← gòląb(ek) ‘pigeon’), kapùstnik ‘cabbage patch’ (← kapùsta ‘cabbage’), kùrnik ‘henhouse’ (← kùra ‘hen’); -niô and extended -arniô: cegelniô/ceglarniô ‘brickyard’ (← cegła ‘brick’), drëkarniô ‘printing house’ (← drëkôrz ‘printer’), ksãgarniô ‘bookshop’ (← ksãga ‘book’), rëbiarniô ‘fishmonger’s’ (← rëba ‘fish’), stolarniô ‘joiner’s shop’ (← stolôrz ‘joiner’). C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s are formed by means of -stwò and its variants: babstwò ‘women’ (← baba), białgłowstwo ‘women’ (← białogłowa), dzéwùstwò ‘girls’ (← dzéwùs), lëdztwò ‘crowds of people’ (← lëdze ‘people’), przejacelstwò ‘a lot of friends’ (← przëjacel ‘friend’), ptastwò ‘flock of birds’ (← ptôch ‘bird’). D i m i n u t i v e and h y p o c o r i s t i c n o u n s are sensitive to the gender of the base noun. M a s c u l i n e nouns take the suffixes: -(e)k: hypocoristics, e.g., aniółk (← aniół ‘angel’), bòcón(e)k (← bòcón ‘stork’), gróbk (← grób ‘grave’), grzib(e)k (← grzib ‘mushroom’), lës(e)k (← lës ‘fox’), robôcz(e)k (← robôk ‘worm’), tatk (← tata ‘dad’). Hypocoristics of male forenames are usually also formed with the suffix -(e)k: Jan(e)k (← Jan), Łukôsz(ek) (← Łukôsz), Paweł(e)k (← Paweł) as well as diminutives of male hypocoristic forenames, e.g., Bògùsz(e)k (← Bògùsz ← Bògùsłôw ‘Bogislav’); -ik, -ëk and the variants -nik, -czik occur in personal and non-personal nouns: kluczik ‘diminutive/hypocoristic of key’ (← klucz ‘key’), knôpik (← knôp ‘boy’), kònik (← kòń ‘horse’), krziżik (← krziż ‘cross’), wózyk (← wóz ‘cart’), also in forenames such as Józyk (← Józef), Kazyk (← Kazmiérz). Personal and non-personal f e m a l e nouns take the suffix -ka: diminutives/hypocoristics, e.g., bródka (← broda ‘beard’), córeczka (← córka ‘daughter’), gąbka (← gãba ‘face’), główka (← głowa ‘head’). Personal and non-personal n e u t e r nouns are formed with the suffixes -ko and variants: hypocoristic gniôzdkò (← gniôzdo ‘nest’), òczkò (← òkò ‘eye’), pólkò (← pòle ‘field’), and derivatives referring to young creatures: -ątkò: dzécątkò hypocoristic of ‘child’ (← dzeckò ‘child’), celątkò (← celã ‘calf’), kùrczątkò (← kùrczã ‘chicken’). A u g m e n t a t i v e s : babskò augmentative/pejorative of ‘woman’ (← baba ‘woman (pej.)’), chłopiskò/chłopiszcze (← chłop ‘man’), piecëskò or older piecëszccze (← piec ‘stove’). N a m e s o f y o u n g , i m m a t u r e c r e a t u r e s are formed with the suffixes -ã/-ãca and -ôk, the first one predominates in Northern and central Kashubia, the second one in Southern Kashubia. Among personal nouns in -ã there are only dzéwczã, dzéwczã-ca/dzéwcz-ëc-a ‘little girl’ (← dzéwk-a ‘girl, miss’) and knôpiã, knôpi-ãc-a ‘little boy’ (← knôp ‘boy’) or rarely knôpczã ‘id.’ (← knapskò ‘little boy’ with a connotation of pitifulness and endearment). Historically, the surnames of children were derived in this way from the father’s surname ending in a consonant, e.g., Klocę ‘son

157. Kashubian

2861

of a father with the surname Kloc’ (from the court register of the town Kościerzyna, 16th century). As examples of a n i m a l n o u n s may serve: kòcã/kòcôk ‘kitten’ (← kòt ‘cat’), kózlã ‘goatling’ (← kòzeł ‘goat’), gùlã/gùlôk ‘young turkey’ (← gùła ‘turkey hen’). Formations in -ã are rarely found in designations of wild birds, e.g., gapiã ‘young crow’ (← gapa ‘crow’).

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Deadjectival nouns belong to several categories: A b s t r a c t n o u n s are often formed with the suffix -ota, which is obsolete in Polish, while in Kashubian it is productive, especially in literary Kashubian. In Sychta (1969, Vol. 3: 170) we only find the word miłosc ‘mercy’ (the word miłota is missing), but both translators of the Holy Bible, the priest F. Grucza and the writer and publicist E. Gołąbek, introduce in their translations the word miłota (cf. St Paul’s Hymn of Love, 1 Corinthians 13); more similar examples are attested. Examples with the suffixes -ota, -osc, and -oc deriving abstract nouns: casnota ‘tightness, cramped conditions’ (← casny ‘tight’), cepłota ‘heat, hot temperature’ (← cepłi ‘hot, warm’), dobrota ‘goodness, kindness’ (← dobri ‘good, kind’), głëchòta ‘deafness’ (← głëchi ‘deaf’), głëpòta ‘stupidity’ (← głëpi ‘stupid’), zgniłota ‘laziness’ (← zgniłi ‘lazy’); -osc: lepszosc ‘superiority’ (← lepszi ‘better’), nôpartosc ‘stubbornness’ (← nôparti ‘stubborn’); -oc (rare in Kashubian): dobroc ‘goodness, kindness’ (← dobri ‘good, kind’), wilgòc ‘dampness, humidity’ (← wilgòtny ‘damp, wet’). It is worth mentioning that in his dictionary A. Labuda (Labuda 1982) wished to replace all -osc-structures by words with the suffix -oc, which was objected to by the author of this article. Deadjectival p e r s o n a l n o u n s are formed with the suffixes: -ôk: bòsôk ‘barefooted person’ (← bòsy ‘barefooted’), krewniôk ‘blood relative’ (← krewny ‘relative by blood’), młodzôk ‘youngster’ (← młodi ‘young’), słabôk ‘weakling’ (← słabi ‘weak’); -ôl: brzëdôl ‘ugly man’ (← brzëdczi ‘ugly’), chcëwôl ‘miser’ (← chcëwi ‘greedy’), łësôl ‘bald man’ (← łësy ‘bald’), and pãkôl ‘fatso’ (← pãkati ‘fat, pot-bellied’) with disintegrational derivation (i.e. omission of -at-); -(e)c: chcëwc/chcywiec ‘miser’ (← chcëwi ‘greedy’), głëpc or głupiec ‘fool’ (← głëpi/ głupi ‘stupid’), łakómc ‘greedy person’ (← łakomi ‘greedy’), znajómc ‘acquaintance’ (← znajomi ‘familiar’); from adjectivized participles: òberwańc ‘scruff’ (← òberwany ‘in worn-out clothes’), òszukańc ‘cheat’ (← òszukany ‘cheated’), zapaleńc ‘enthusiast’ (← zapôlóny ‘keen; lit. heated up’); -él(e)c: chcëwélc ‘greedy person’ (← chcëwi ‘greedy’), nicwartélc ‘not decent person’ (← nic wôrt ‘not decent’), òbżartélc ‘glutton’ (← òbżarti ‘greedy for food’), ùmiartélc ‘thin person’ (← ùmiarti ‘thin, skinny’); -ińc: klatińc ‘shaggy dog’ (← klatë ‘hair’ (pej.)), łësyńc ‘bald person’ (← łësy), naszińc ‘our (person), compatriot’ (← nasz ‘our’), piërszińc ‘best worker, leader during harvest time’ (← piërszi ‘first’); -ik, -ëk and -nik: pòtwarnik ‘slanderer’ (← pòtwarny ‘slanderous’), zawôrnik ‘troublemaker’ (← zawôrny ‘quarrelsome, aggressive’), zazérnik ‘truculent person’ (← zazérny ‘eager to start a quarrel, obstreperous’), and non-personal nouns: mòrznik ‘wind from the sea’ (← mòrzny ‘marine’), piérnik/piérznik ‘ginger bread’ (← piérny ‘peppery’);

2862

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

-uch: głodniuch ‘person greedy for food’ (← głodny ‘hungry’), niesromúch ‘shameless person’ (← niesromny ‘shameless’), òbżartuch ‘glutton’ (← òbżarti ‘gluttonous’), staruch ‘old man’ (← stari ‘old’); -us: chcëwus ‘greedy man’ (← chcëwi ‘greedy’), gnilus ‘layabout’ (← (z)gniłi ‘lazy’), nagus ‘naked man’ (← nadżi ‘naked’). The suffixes -ica, -ëca derive p e r s o n a l f e m a l e n o u n s , e.g., gòlëca ‘naked or skimpily dressed woman’ (← gòłô (białka) ‘naked (woman)’, but also: ‘mountain with no grass or bushes growing on it’ (← gòłô (góra)), òkrãglëca ‘pregnant woman’ (← òkrãgłô (białka) ‘round (woman)’), ùschlëca ‘thin woman’ (← ùschłô (białka)), but also: ‘dry branch of a tree’ (← ùschłô (galąz)). Some examples of n o n - p e r s o n a l f e m a l e n o u n s : krwawica ‘work-worn hand’, rarely: ‘menstruation’ (← krwawô (rãka) ‘bloody (hand)’), lewica ‘left hand’ (← lewô (rãka) ‘left (hand)’), prawica ‘right hand’ (← prawô (rãka) ‘right (hand)’).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns a) A c t i o n n o u n s , names of activities, etc., are formed with the suffixes: -anié: action nouns with this suffix are almost systematically derived from verbs belonging to the conjugation type “-ac, -óm” (ending of the infinitive and of the 1st person sg.), e.g., bieganié ‘running’ (← biegac), czekanié ‘waiting’ (← czekac), gôdanié ‘chatting’ (← gadac), and many more; -enié: action nouns with this suffix are derived from verbs belonging to the conjugation type “-ã, -isz” (here the endings of the 1st and 2nd pers. sg. are representative of the type), e.g., czarzenié ‘practising magic’ (← czarzëc), gbùrzenié ‘running a farm’ (← gbùrzëc), gòlenié ‘shaving’ (← gòlëc); -cé: mainly derived from verb stems ending in -ne-/-no-, e.g., sadnãcé ‘sitting’ (← sadnąc), schniãcé ‘drying’ (← schnąc), ùrzasniãcé ‘frightening’ (← ùrzasnąc sã ‘to be frightened’), zaczãcé ‘beginning’ (← zacząc), zabëcé ‘oblivion, forgetting’ (← zabëc ‘to forget’); -anina (rare): szarpanina ‘scrambling, struggling’ (← szarpac sã), żebranina ‘begging’ (← żebrac); metonymic: szlapanina ‘foul autumn weather’ (← szlapac ‘to paddle in water’); -ba: chwalba/chwôlba ‘praising’ (← chwalëc/chwôlëc), grozba ‘threat’ (← grozëc), kòsba ‘reaping’ (← kòsëc), żéńba ‘marriage’ (← żéniëc sã); -ka: młócka ‘threshing’ (← młócëc), órka ‘ploughing’ (← òrac), pògróżka ‘threat’ (← pògrozëc), przepiérka ‘wash(ing)’ (← przeprac), wëszczérka ‘jeering’ (← wëszczérzac); -twa: bitwa ‘battle’ (← bic sã), kùrzatwa ‘snowstorm’ (← kùrzëc ‘to snow’), gònitwa ‘chasing’ (← gònic sã), mòdlëtwa ‘prayer’ (← mòdlëc sã); -ot: abstract nouns, also denoting momentaneous actions, e.g., grëchòt ‘clatter’ (← grëchac ‘to coo’), piskòt ‘squeal’ (← piszczec), szepòt ‘whisper’ (← szeptac), and many more. b) A g e n t n o u n s / p e r s o n a l n o u n s are derived with the suffixes: -ôrz: fechtôrz ‘beggar’ (← fechtowac ‘to beg’), kòpôrz ‘grave digger’ (← kòpac ‘to dig’), piekôrz ‘baker’ (← piec), pisôrz ‘writer’ (← pisac);

157. Kashubian

2863

-ôcz: biegôcz ‘a man always in a hurry’ (← biegac ‘to run’), dwigôcz ‘person who lifts, carries’ (← dwigac), grôcz ‘player’ (← grac), słëchôcz ‘listener’ (← słëchac); non-personal nouns: bëkôcz ‘woodpecker’ (← bëkac ‘to hit with a beak on the bark of a tree’), pòwijôcz ‘bindweed’ (← powijac sã ‘to pull, stretch out’); -ôk: bijôk ‘troublemaker, daredevil’, also non-personal ‘part of a flail for manual threshing’ (← bijac ‘to hit’), leżôk ‘layabout’ (← leżec ‘to lie’), plëstôk ‘gossip, chatterbox’ (← plëstac ‘to talk a lot, prattle’), płëwôk ‘swimmer’ (← płëwac); -ôl: grôl ‘player’ (← grac), kówôl ‘blacksmith’ (← kówac ‘to hammer’), łgôl ‘liar’ (← łgac), wiskôl ‘delouser’ (← wiskac), rarely -ôla, e.g., łgôla ‘liar’ (← łgac); -ola: dëgòla ‘glutton’ (← dëgòwac, metaphorically ‘to eat a lot’), jarchòla ‘man who shouts loudly, yells’ (← jarchòlëc), skrzëpòla ‘poor musician’ (← skrzëpiec ‘to rasp (on a fiddle)’); -ela: gùrdzela ‘person who shrinks because of cold weather or something frightening’ (← gùrdzëc so), piérdzela ‘person who breaks wind’ (← piérdzec), srela ‘youngster’ (pej.) (← srac ‘to defecate’); -(e)c: krawiec/krôwc ‘dressmaker’ (← krawac ‘to cut’), kùp(ie)c ‘buyer, trader’ (← kùpiac ‘to buy’), szewiec ‘shoemaker’ (← szëc ‘to sew’); -cel: kazëcel ‘person who destroys, breaks everything’ (← kazëc), pògòrszëcel ‘person who makes things worse’ (← pògòrszëc ‘to make sth. worse’), pòkùsëcel ‘tempter’ (← pòkùsëc ‘to talk somebody into doing something bad’), rëchcëcel ‘baptist’ (← rëchcëc ‘to baptise’), sãdzëcel ‘judge’ (← sądzëc ‘to judge, think’); -nik: cëcnik 1. ‘child who is not able to disaccustom of breast feeding or of teat’, 2. ‘drunkard’ (← cëcac 1. ‘to suck at mother’s breast’; 2. ‘to drink alcohol from a bottle’), kòlibnik ‘man with a swinging walk’ (← kòlibac sã), òdrobnik ‘man who works to discharge his debt’ (← òdrobic), and others; -ała: chwiądała ‘man who always scratches himself’ (← chwiądac sã), gruchała 1. ‘chatterbox’; 2. ‘man who coughs’ (← gruchac 1. ‘to coo, talk tenderly’; 2. ‘to cough’), grëzdała ‘scribbler’(← grëzdac), gwizdała ‘man who always whistles’ (← gwizdac), kwiczała ‘cry-baby’ (← kwiczec ‘to squeal, cry’), niedbała ‘somebody who doesn’t care, bungler’ (← nie dbac ‘to not care’). c) F e m a l e a g e n t n o u n s / p e r s o n a l n o u n s are formed with the suffix -ëca: drémlëca/drzémlëca ‘woman who snoozes’ (← drémac/drzémac), szôlëca ‘woman who flirts with men, seduces men’ (← szôlëc/szalec ‘to fool somebody with promises, deceive’). This suffix is also found in the instrument noun smëdlëca ‘plane’ (← smëdlëc ‘to whittle’). d) I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s can be derived by means of: -ôcz: dëmôcz ‘blacksmith’s bellows’ (← dëmac iterative from dëmic ‘to smoke’), klepôcz ‘carpet beater, egg beater’ (← klepac ‘to beat’), sekôcz ‘kind of a knife for chopping swede and potatoes’ (← sekac ‘to chop’), trzepôcz ‘tool for beating flax’ (← trzepac ‘to beat’); -ôk: dërdôk ‘wooden tool to beat cream into butter’ (← dërdac ‘to make butter’), dłëbôk ‘chisel’ (← dłëbac ‘to bore, carve’), dzerżôk ‘handle of flails’ (← dzerżëc ‘to hold, keep’), wiészôk ‘coat hanger’ (← wiészac ‘to hang’); -dło: cedzëdło ‘strainer, sieve’ (← cedzëc), kadzëdło ‘incense’ (← kadzëc ‘to burn incense’), kòwadło ‘anvil’ (← kòwac ‘to hammer, bore’), mëdło ‘soap’ (← mëc ‘to wash’), płoszëdło ‘scarecrow’ (← płoszëc ‘to frighten’), wiészadło ‘hanger’ (← wiészac ‘to hang’);

2864

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic -ka: cedzka ‘strainer, sieve’ (← cedzëc ‘to strain’); -nica: rãbnica ‘axe’ (← rąbic ‘to chop’).

4.2. Adjectival derivation 4.2.1. Denominal adjectives There are some prefixes with intensifying meaning, e.g., nad-: nadprzërodzony ‘supernatural’ (borrowed from Polish religious vocabulary) (← przërodzony ‘natural’), nadzwëczajny ‘extraordinary, unusual’ (← zwëczajny ‘usual’), and (with a certain limitation of intensity) przë-: przëgrëbasny ‘a bit too fat’ (← grëbasny ‘chubby’). Many such adjectives are currently borrowed from Polish, especially in Southern Kashubia, e.g., pòdstarszawi ‘older’ (← starszawi ‘a bit older’). Most denominal adjectives are derived by suffixation. In the works on Slavic wordformation, the classification of denominal adjectives comprises three main groups: socalled possessive adjectives, relational adjectives, and qualitative adjectives. Often there is no clearcut differentiation between possessive adjectives (in the sense of the Slavic term) and relational adjectives, and between the latter and qualitative adjectives. a) P o s s e s s i v e adjectives often refer to an individual referent when derived from personal proper names and kindred terms, but not exclusively. They can, for instance, also be derived from appellative personal names of professions and from animal nouns. The respective adjectives can be derived by the following suffixes: -ów (f. -owa, n. -owo) with bases of masculine nouns: òjców ‘belonging to the/a father’ (← òjc), tatków ‘id., paternal’ (← tatk ‘father’), szewców ‘belonging to a shoemaker’ (← szewiec), krawców/krôwców ‘belonging to a dressmaker’ (← krawiec/krôwc). In Kashubia, numerous names of towns and villages go back to possessive adjectives, derived from personal proper names, mainly with the suffix -owo, e.g., Bòjanowò (← Bòjan), Bòrkòwò (←Bòr(e)k), Kistowò (← Kist ← Kilian), and its plural form -òwë: Leszkòwë (← Lesz(e)k); -in, -ina, -ino (with bases of masculine nouns): brutczin ‘maiden, maidenly’ (← brutka ‘young girl’), cotczin ‘belonging to the/an aunt’ (← cotka), sąsôdczin ‘belonging to the/a neighbour’ (←sąsôdka), kùkówczin ‘cuckoo’ (adj.) (← kùkówka), mëdżin ‘mosquito’ (adj.) (← mëga). Some villages’ names are derived from possessive adjectives of neuter gender, e.g., Cechòcëno (← Cechòta), Miechùcëno (← Miechùta). The following adjectives (with possessive-relational meaning) are derived from animal names and (less frequently) from personal nouns. They can be regarded as results of the so called-paradigmatic word-formation, in works on Polish word-formation defined as combination of conversion and the addition of an inflectional ending which indicates the change of paradigm (see also article 156 on Polish): babi ‘woman’s, female’ (← baba ‘woman’), barani ‘sheep’s, ram’s, sheepskin’ (← baran ‘ram’), Bòżi ‘God’s, divine’ (← Bóg ‘God’), czarcy ‘devil’s’ (← czart), diôbli ‘devil’s’ (← diôbeł), ksãżi ‘priest’s’ (← ksiądz), kòcy ‘cat’s’ (← kòt), jeleni ‘deer’s’ (← jeleń), mrówczi ‘ant’s’ (← mrówka), warni ‘crow’s’ (← warna). See also section 5.

157. Kashubian

2865

b) R e l a t i o n a l adjectives ( whose general meaning can be specified as temporal, local, final, etc., depending of the semantics of the noun they combine with) are formed with the suffixes: -ny, -ô, -é: jesénny ‘autumn’ (adj.) (← jeséń), gminny ‘referring to a district’ (← gmina), kùchenny ‘referring to a kitchen’ (← kùchniô), rodzynny ‘referring to the family’ (← rodzëna), żëtny ‘rye’ (adj.) (← żëto); -ni, -niô, -nié: letni ‘summer’ (adj.) (← lato), płużni ‘referring to a plough’ (← pług) (but cf. also the qualitative adjective in -ni: krôsni ‘beautiful’ ← krasa ‘beauty’); −owi, -ô, -é: bùkòwi ‘beech’ (adj. ) (← bùk), chlebòwi ‘bread’ (adj.) (← chléb), dãbòwi ‘oak’ (adj.) (← dąb); (with relational and qualitative meaning: żôłcowi ‘bile (adj.), yellow’ ← żôłc ‘bile, yellow colour’); -ewi, -ô, -é: kóńcewi ‘final’ (← kóńc ‘finish, end’), krziżewi ‘cross’ (adj.) (← krziż ‘cross’), òlszewi ‘alder’ (adj.) (← òlszô), sërcewi ‘heart’ (adj.) (← sërce), słuńcewi ‘solar’ (← słuńce ‘sun’). Derivatives with the suffix -an(n)y, -ô, -é constitute a relatively closed group of m a t e r i a l a d j e c t i v e s , e.g., drewnianny/drzewianny ‘wooden, made of wood’ (← drewno), drócanny ‘made of wire’ ← (drót), glënianny ‘made of clay’ (← glëna), kamianny ‘made of stone’ (← kam, kamiń), słomianny ‘made of straw’ (← słoma). c) Q u a l i t a t i v e adjectives express the meaning of p o s s e s s i o n (ornative meaning) and of s i m i l a r i t y. As can be seen by the following examples, most of the suffixes convey both meanings, some of them are also used in relational meaning: e.g., -isti/-ësti: cenisti ‘shady’ (← ceń ‘shadow’), wòdnisti ‘containing a lot of water’ (← wòda), mglisti ‘foggy’ (← mgła), szklisti ‘glazed’ (← szkło ‘glass’); -asti: ogóniasti ‘caudated’ (← ogón ‘tail’), trôwiasti ‘grassy’ (← trôwa), muniasti ‘labial’ and ‘with a big mouth’ (← munia ‘lip’); -ati and its variant -òwati (mostly with the meaning of similarity, but also with ornative meaning): mëszati ‘mouse-grey’ (← mësz), nosati ‘with a big nose’ (← nos); chamòwati ‘loutish’ (← cham), jajowati ‘oval’ (← jaje ‘egg’), pòpielati ‘grey, ashen’ (← pòpiół ‘ashes’); -awi (ornative meaning and similarity): krostawi ‘covered with spots, blemishes’ (← krosta), krwawi ‘bloody’ (← krew), mgławi ‘foggy’ (← mgła), rdzawi ‘covered with rust, rust-coloured, reddish’ (← rdza ‘rust’); -sczi, -skô, -sczé (expressing similarity and relational meaning): anielsczi ‘angelic’ (← anioł ‘angel’), białkòwsczi ‘woman’s, female’ (← białka), chłopsczi ‘man’s, male’ (← chłop), lëdzczi ‘human’ (← lëdze ‘people, humans’), sąsedzczi ‘neighbourly’ (← sąsôd). Toponyms derived from names of rivers belong to this group, e.g., Drawskò (← Drawa), Słupsk (← Słupiô). D i s p o s i t i o n a l adjectives, i.e. adjectives denoting a propensity, affinity or predilection to that which is denoted by the base noun, are formed with the suffix -lëwi (see also section 4.2.3 on deverbal adjectives): chòroblëwi ‘pathological, abnormal’ (← chòroba ‘illness, disease’), dobrotlëwi ‘good-natured, kind-hearted’ (← dobrota ‘goodness, kindness’), strachlëwi ‘timid, chicken-livered’ (← strach ‘fear, dread’), szczestlëwi ‘happy’ (← szczescé ‘happiness, luck’), wstëdlëwi ‘bashful, embarrassed’ (← wstid ‘shame, embarrassment’).

2866

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Adjectives with an a p p r o x i m a t i v e meaning are derived with the suffix -awi: cemnawi ‘a bit dark’ (← cemny), chłodnawi ‘a bit chilly’ (← chłodny), głodnawi ‘a bit hungry’ (← głodny), głupawi ‘half-witted’ (← głupi ‘stupid’), słodkawi ‘a bit sweet, sweetish’ (← słodczi), zëmnavi ‘a bit cold’ (← zëmny), etc. Adjectives expressing the i n t e n s i t y of a quality can be formed with -szi, -észi: jinszi ‘completely different’ (← jiny ‘other’). This same suffix is also used to form the c o m p a r a t i v e : grëbszi ‘fatter’ (← grëbi), słabszi ‘weaker’ (← słaby), mądrzészi ‘wiser’ (← mądri), twardzészi ‘harder, tougher’ (← twardi). We share the view of Polish grammars which regard the comparison of adjectives as word-formation. There are a few d i m i n u t i v e suffixes with an intensifying function, e.g., -uchny/ -ëchny: ceplëchny/cepluchny ‘beautifully warm’ (← cepłi), ùbòżëchny/ùbòżuchny ‘very poor’ (← ùbòdżi); -uszczi: cepluszczi ‘beautifully warm’ (← cepłi), krótuszczi ‘very short’ (← krótczi), maluszczi ‘tiny’ (← małi ‘small’); -inczi/-ënczi: diminutives with a hypocoristic character, derived from diminutive-hypocoristic adjectives: bielëszinczi (← bielëchny ‘very white’), cëszinczi (← cëchi ‘quiet’), malinczi ‘tiny’ (← małi ‘small’), malëtinczi (← malutczi ‘very small’); słabuszenczi (← słabuchny ‘very weak’), etc.

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Adjectives expressing a r e s u l t a n t s t a t e are formed with the suffix -łi (diachronically going back to the active perfect participle), e.g., dorosłi ‘adult’ (← dorosnąc ‘to grow up’), dozdrzélałi ‘mature’ (← dozdrzélec ‘to ripen, mature’), òwdowiałi ‘widowed’ (← òwdowiec ‘to become a widow/widower’), òbiédniałi ‘impoverished’ (← òbiédniec ‘to become impoverished’), òpùchłi ‘swollen’ (← òpùchnąc ‘to swell up’), ùdałi ‘good, brave, proper’ (← ùdac so ‘to succeed’), ùmarłi ‘dead’ (← ùmrzec ‘to die’), ùszłi ‘last, past’ (← ùńsc/ùnc ‘to pass, escape’), zasedzałi ‘settled’ (← zasedzec sã ‘to settle down’), żeniałi ‘married’ (← żenic sã ‘to marry’). Adjectives denoting a d i s p o s i t i o n or propensity for an action are formed with the suffix -lëwi: bòdlëwi ‘eager to bore, butt, poke (of horned cattle)’ (← bòsc ‘to butt’), kòchlëwi ‘eager to love’ (← kòchac ‘to love’), lãklëwi ‘fearful’ (← lãkac sã ‘to be afraid’), pamiãtlëwi ‘unforgiving’ (← pamãtac ‘to remember’), ùstãplëwi ‘pliant, submissive’ (← ùstąpic ‘to give in, retreat, withdraw’), wątplëwi ‘doubtful’ (← wątpic ‘to doubt’), etc.

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Denominal verbs Denominal verbs are formed with the suffixes -owac, -ëc, -iec and belong to the following categories: a) ‘to be (like) N’: lexicalized kòniowac ‘to be in heat (of a stallion)’ (← kóń ‘stallion’); matczëc ‘to mother, be mother to someone’ (← matka ‘mother’), parobczëc ‘to work

157. Kashubian

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

2867

as a farmhand’ (← parobk ‘farmhand’), tatczëc/tatowac ‘to be a father’ (← tatk, tata ‘father’); tatkòwac ‘to pretend to be a father’ (← tatk); ‘to become N’: inchoative verbs are formed with the suffix -ec: babiec ‘to become an old woman’ (← baba ‘old woman’), baraniec ‘to become stupefied, not know what to do’ (← baran ‘ram’), chłopiec ‘to become a man’ (← chłop ‘man’), drewniec ‘to become stiff, numb’ (← drewno ‘wood’), dzadzec ‘to get older’ (← dzôd ‘old man’); ‘to do N (action)’: balowac ‘to entertain oneself, visit dancing balls’ (← bal ‘ball’), jachtowac ‘to hunt’ (← jachta ‘hunt’), jiwrowac so ‘to worry, trouble’ (← jiwer ‘trouble, worry’); ‘to make N’: léchòwac ‘to make flower beds, patches in the garden’ (← lécha ‘patch in the garden’), stogòwac ‘to build stacks’ (← stóg ‘stack’). Factitive/causative verbs are also derived by circumfixation: za-les-ëc ‘to convert into forest’ (← las ‘wood’), za-wsz-ëc ‘to make sth. louse-infested’ (← wszë ‘louse’), etc.; ‘to supply with N’: dachòwac ‘to roof’ (← dach ‘roof’), délowac ‘to put boards on the floor’ (← dél ‘board, plank’), drótowac ‘to make a fence of wire’; in a new meaning ‘to phone’ (← drót ‘wire’), fùgòwac ‘to make joints’ (← fùga ‘joint, groove in a board’), smołowac ‘to cover with tar’ (← smoła ‘tar’); ‘to act with N’: balowac ‘to play ball’ (← bal(a)), héblowac ‘to plane’ (← hébel), nogòwac ‘to run away, leg it’ (← noga ‘leg’), żôgòwac ‘to saw’ (← żôga ‘saw’), kartowac ‘to play cards’ (← kartë ‘playing cards’).

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Deadjectival verbs are formed with the suffixes -ec, -ic, ëc, realising the following derivational categories: a) ‘to become A’: bielec ‘to become white’ (← biôłi), czôrniec ‘to become black’ (← czôrny), głëpiec ‘to become stupid’ (← głëpi), kùlawiec ‘to become lame’ (← kùlawi), mądrzec ‘to become wiser’ (← mądri), sëwiec ‘to become grey’ (← sëwi), trzézwiec ‘to become sober’ (← trzézwi), and others; b) ‘to make A’: bielëc ‘to make white’ (← biôłi), czarnic/czernic ‘to make black’ (← czôrny), czëszczëc ‘to make clean’ (← czësti), gładzëc ‘to make smooth’ (← gładczi), żôłcëc ‘to make yellow’ (← żôłti). Verbs with this meaning are often formed by simultaneous prefixation and suffixation (circumfixation), e.g., òd-młodz-ëc ‘to make young’ (← młodi), roz-rzôdcz-ëc ‘to dilute’ (← rzôdczi ‘thin, watery’), ùpiãksz-ëc ‘to make beautiful’ (← piãkny), za-zelén-ic ‘to make green’ (← zelony).

4.4. Adverbial derivation From a synchronic point of view, Kashubian adverbs are systematically formed with two suffixes. More frequently used, especially in literary Kashubian, is -o: bliskò ‘near, closely’ (← blisczi), blado ‘palely’ (← bladi), cenkò ‘thinly, lightly’ (← cenczi), czësto ‘often, frequently’ (← czësti ‘frequent’), długò ‘long’ (← dłudżi), dôwno ‘long ago’ (← dôwny

2868

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

‘ancient, old’), drogò ‘expensively’ (← drodżi), krótkò ‘shortly, briefly’ (← krótczi ‘short’), mòkro ‘wetly’ (← mòkri), sëchò ‘dryly’ (← sëchi), and many more. Less frequent is -e, e.g., biédnie ‘poorly’ (← biédny), chitrze ‘slyly, craftily’ (← chitri), dobrze ‘well’ (← dobri ‘good’), dzywnie ‘strangely, oddly’ (← dzywny), fałszëwie ‘falsely’ (← fałszëwi), sprawiedlëwie ‘in a fair way’ (← sprawiedlëwi ‘fair’), zle ‘badly’ (← złi). Four adverbs, in addition to the corresponding forms in final -o, end in -k: dalekò/ dalek ‘far’ (← daleczi), głãbòkò/głãbòk ‘deeply’ (← głãbòczi), szërokò/szërok ‘widely, broadly’ (← szëroczi), wësokò/wësok ‘highly’ (← wësoczi). Adverbs from adjectives in -ski are formed with pò (going back to a preposition) and the ending -u (going back to the dative singular of the old nominal declension), e.g., pò pòlskù ‘in Polish’, pò anielskù ‘in English’, pò francëskù ‘in French’, etc. Adverbs denoting the way of conduct, behaviour, are also formed in this way, e.g., pò gbùrskù ‘like a farmer’ (← gbùr ‘farmer’), pò chamskù ‘like a lout’ (← cham ‘lout, swine’). There are also numerous other adverbs of this type (po + -u). They are spelled together, as, for example, pòmału ‘slowly’ (← małi ‘little, small’), or separately, e.g., pò cëchù ‘quietly’ (← cëchi). The formation type po + -emu goes back to the old complex adjectival declension: pò dôwnémù ‘in the old manner’ (← dôwny ‘former, old’), pò naszémù ‘in our way’ (← nasz ‘our’). See also section 5.4.

5. Conversion In Kashubian and Polish word-formation, conversion is regarded as “paradigmatic wordformation” because it is accompanied by a formally marked change (inflectional ending) of the paradigm. In contrast to English or German, verbs are not formed by conversion.

5.1. Nominal conversion Nominal conversion comprises a) Nouns of different gender (gender conversion): kmotra and kùma ‘godmather’ (← kmoter and kùm ‘godfather’), sarna ‘roe deer’ (← sâren ‘deer’) besides odd babùś ‘grandfather’ (← babùsia ‘grandmother’) in South Kashubia, historically also dzéwic ‘male virgin’ (← dzéwica ‘virgin’). Relatively many female forenames were formed in this way, e.g., Józefa (← Józef), Karola (← Karol), Paulina (← Paulin), including diminutives/hypocoristics, e.g., Józka (← Józk), Mirka (← Mir(e)k), Sztefka (← Sztefk); a corresponding female name can be formed practically from every male name. b) Action nouns, e.g., kara ‘punishment’ (← karac ‘to punish’), mòwa ‘speech; language’ (← mówic ‘to speak’), pòchwała ‘commendation’ (← pòchwalëc ‘to praise’), przerwa ‘pause, break’ (← przerwac ‘to interrupt, break’), zdrada ‘betrayal’ (← zdradzëc ‘to betray, cheat’) and many more, also surnames as, e.g., Czuba (← czubic sã ‘to squabble’), Zwara (← zwarzëc ‘to cook’). Former authors recognized in the given nouns a suffix -a.

157. Kashubian

2869

5.2. Adjectival and adverbial conversion In denominal adjectival conversion, the part of speech is indicated by the ending. All examples belong to the category of Slavic “possessive adjectives” with the meaning ‘possessed by, belonging to’, e.g., babi ‘woman’s, female’ (← baba), Bòżi ‘God’s, divine’ (← Bóg), czarcy ‘devil’s’ (← czart ‘devil, fiend’), diôbli ‘devil’s’ (← diôbeł), ksãżi ‘priest’s’ (← ksiądz), jeleni ‘deer’s’ (← jeleń), koni ‘horse’s’ (← kóń), kòzy ‘goat’s’ (← kòza), kùrzi ‘hen’s’ (← kùra), lësy ‘fox’s’ (← lës), swini ‘pig’s’ (← swinia), etc. In previous studies, -i/-y was regarded as derivational formant (see also section 4.2.1). Some forms of nouns are converted to/function as adverbs, e.g., dołém/dołã ‘below, down’ (← instr. of dół ‘hole, bottom’), duszczém/duszkã ‘(to drink sth.) quickly, between breaths’ (← instr. of dusz(e)k ‘breath’), górą ‘up, on top’ (← instr. of góra ‘upper part, mountain’), wiérzchem ‘on horseback’ (← instr. of wiérzch ‘top, here: horseback’).

6. Minor processes of word-formation Backformation is relatively rare in nouns. The derivatives go back to the omission of the desemantisized diminutive suffix -k(a). In this way the backformed nouns may obtain an augmentative meaning which is positively connotated in the case of ksãga ‘big book, holy book, the Bible’ (← ksążka ‘book’). More often, however, they have a pejorative and/or expressive connotation, e.g., dzéwa ‘girl’ (pej.) (← dzéwka ‘girl’) (Sychta 1967– 76 Vol. 1: 264), wóda ‘vodka’ (pej.) (← wódka ‘vodka’) (see also article 18 on backformation, example (6)). A related process which, however, does not fully match the criteria of backformation, i.e. the mere deletion of a suffix, can be seen in klócha ‘big, unshapely dumpling’ (← klóska), micha ‘large bowl, bowl’ (pej.) (← miska). Here, the suffix -k- is also deleted (together with the final stem consonant), but at the same time, contrary to the abovementioned examples like dziewa, an additional element (-ch) is attached. The same pertains to the omission of the masculine suffix -(e)k (+ final stem consonant) and the addition of -ch in the ethnic name Ruch ‘a Russian’ (pej.) (← Rus(e)k ‘a Russian man’); cf. also the formation of expressively connotated variants of surnames, e.g., Czedroch (← Czedrowsczi), Púzdroch (← Púzdrowsczi), where the complex suffix -owsczi has been deleted but subsequently substituted by -(o)ch. As has been pointed out by Nagórko on the basis of Polish examples (see article 89 on morphopragmatics in Slavic), the phonological sequence “vowel + velar fricative” is not only characteristic for some expressive suffixes but also for suffixless products of alternation such as Pol. deska → decha ‘board’ (cf. the analogous alternation in Kashubian miska → micha above). Nagórko does not regard them as a result of backformation but refers to Szymanek (1996) who considered the motivation for negative expression seemingly coded in the velar fricative ch /x/ to belong to the very physiology of emotions. This may also hold for Kashubian expressive variants of forenames whose final consonant is substituted by -ch such as Jach (← Jan) and, combined with clipping, Stach (← Stanisłôw).

2870

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Nouns derived from verbs are more frequently formed by backformation (traditionally, the following examples are, however, also regarded as results of zero-suffixation or conversion accompanied by the omission of the verbal stem-forming suffix + ending), e.g., ògród ‘garden’ (← ògródzëc ‘to enclose’), pògrzéb ‘funeral’ (← pògrzebac ‘to bury’), spiéw ‘singing, music’ (← spiewac ‘to sing’), zôpôd ‘sunset, West’ (← zapadac ‘to sink’). By r e d u p l i c a t i o n of the same syllables or just consonants the following groups of words were formed: a) Old words, referring to the closest people in the family: mama ‘mum’, tata ‘dad’, baba originally ‘grandma’, later: ‘old woman, bad woman’, nëna ‘mother, wife’; b) Onomatopoeic interjections used to call animals, e.g., ble-ble-ble (sheep), lu-lu-lu (geese) (and derived from this interjection: lula ‘goose’), mù-mù-mù (cows), gã-gãgã (geese), gùl-gùl-gùl (turkeys) (cf. the deinterjectional derivatives gùła ‘she turkey’ and gùlôrz/gùlôk ‘turkey’), ti-ti-ti and tip-tip-tip (hens); c) Others: lala ‘doll; dressy woman’, lola ‘whip’. New words are rarely formed by b l e n d i n g , e.g., gòlëtka ‘razor blade’ (← gòlëc ‘to shave’ and żëletka ‘razor blade’), and, taken from post-war Polish, mòtel ‘hotel with parking lot, petrol station and garage’ (← motor and hotel), rajtczi ‘children’s tights’ (← rajtuze ‘tights’ and majtczi ‘knickers’). As has been mentioned already, Kashubian was a means of everyday communication, and it was not until 1843, when the first literary texts of F. Ceynowa were published, that it became a literary language. Kashubians only used the b l e n d e d / c l i p p e d name waspón ‘noble man’ (← Was(zô Miłota) Pón ‘milord; lit. Your Grace Lord’), when adressing a person. In a repeatedly clipped form it became the base of an individual nickname, for example in the novel Pomorzanie [Pomeranians] by A. Majkowski (1876− 1938), where Wasta ‘Mister’, Wascënô ‘Madam’ as forms of address were created. In Poland, a b b r e v i a t i o n s have been common, especially since 1950, e.g., PGR (← Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne ‘State Agricultural Farm’), PZPR (← Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza ‘Polish United Labour Party’). They are also used in Kashubian when referring to the communist era. At the present time, when Kashubian is becoming an official language in some districts of the Kashubian area, new abbreviations have been introduced, e.g., UG (← urząd gminë ‘local council’), KUL (← Kaszëbsczi Uniwersytet Lëdowi ‘Kashubian Folk University’), KPZ (← Kaszëbsko-Pòmòrsczé Zrzeszenié ‘Kashubian-Pomeranian Association’). The “Kashubian Language Board” (Radzëzna Kaszëbsczségò Jãzëka) has not yet worked on standardization of abbreviations. One vital process of shortening is, however, u n i v e r b a t i o n (in Slavic word-formation defined as ellipsis of parts of an underlying multi-word expression, combined with suffixation, cf. Urbańczyk 1992: 368). In Kashubian, univerbation is most frequently accompanied by the suffix -(e)c or extended -ówc which attaches to the stem of a relational adjective in denotations of groves and forests, e.g.: dãbówc ‘oak grove’ (← dãbòwi (las) lit. ‘oak-REL.ADJ. forest’), cësówc ‘yew grove’ (← cysowi (zagajnik)), grabówc ‘hornbeam forest’ (← grabòwi (las)), òsówc ‘aspen grove’ (← òsowi (las(e)k)).

157. Kashubian

2871

7. References Breza, Edward (ed.) 2001 Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich. Kaszubczyzna − Kaszëbizna. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. Breza, Edward and Jerzy Treder 1981 Gramatyka Kaszubska. Zarys popularny. Gdańsk: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie. Labuda, Aleksander 1982 Słowôrz kaszskò-pòlsczi. Edited and introduced by Edward Breza. Gdańsk: Nakład Zrzeszenia Kaszubsko-Pomorskiego. Lorentz, Friedrich 1903 Slovinzische Grammatik. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Lorentz, Friedrich 1958−62 [1927−34] Gramatyka pomorska. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Lubaś, Władysław 2002 Kaschubisch. In: Miloš Okuka and Gerald Krenn (eds.), Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens. Vol. 10: Sprachen des europäischen Ostens, 265−273. Klagenfurt: Wieser. Stieber, Zdisław and Hanna Popowska-Taborska (eds.) 1954−78 Atlas językowy kaszubszczyzny i dialektów sąsiednich. 15 Vol. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Sychta, Bernhard 1967−76 Słownik gwar kaszubskich na tle kultury ludowej. 7 Vol. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Szymanek, Bogdan 1996 The morphology of phonological strings: Polish /Vx/. In: Henryk Kardela and Bogdan Szymanek (eds.), A Festschrift for Edmund Gussmann, 293−308. Lublin: University Press of the Catholic University of Lublin. Trepczyk, Jan 1994 Słownik polsko-kaszubski. Gdańsk: Nakład Zrzeszenia Kaszubsko-Pomorskiego. Urbańczyk, Stanisław (ed.) 1992 Encyklopedia języka polskiego. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Zawadzka, Jadwiga 1978 Materiał AJK nie wykazujący leksykalnych i słowotwórczych zróżnicowań terenowych. In: Zdisław Stieber and Hanna Popowska-Taborska (eds.), Atlas językowy kaszubszczyzny i dialektów sąsiednich. Vol. 15, 330–342. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.

Edward Breza, Gdańsk (Poland)

2872

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

158. Czech 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Minor processes of word-formation References

Abstract This article presents a brief survey of the development of Czech word-formation theory (from the oldest grammars up to contemporary Czech linguistics) and describes and illustrates the main word-formation processes. As an inflectional language Czech has extensive derivational possibilities and a richly developed word-formation system, making use chiefly of derivation, less frequently of composition.

1. Introduction Studies in Czech word-formation have a relatively long and rich tradition. Derivation is the most productive means of forming complex words in Czech, and it is closely intertwined with inflectional morphology. Derivational affixes (mainly the suffixes) are connected with certain morphological properties of the words such as gender of nouns (e.g., -ník, -ák (masc.), -k-a, -ic-e (fem.), -dl-o, -stv-í (neuter)) and verbal aspect. In derivation without derivational affixes (i.e. conversion), a concomitant change in the inflectional paradigm can assume the function of signaling a derivational category (e.g., trn ‘thorn’ → trn-í ‘thorn bush, brier wood’ with the ending -í expressing collective meaning in combination with nominal bases). Derivation and inflection take place chiefly at the end of words, both processes are frequently accompanied by similar sound alternations. The interdependence of derivational and inflectional morphology has been reflected in the history of Czech linguistics by, among other things, the fact that word-formation is usually included under the heading of grammar (Trávníček 1951; Havránek and Jedlička 1981; Dokulil et al. 1986; Čechová 1996; Karlík, Nekula and Rusínová 2001; Šmilauer 1971 was originally intended to be part of the grammar which Miloš Weingart prepared in the 1930s). There are only few descriptions in which word-formation is included under lexicology (Hauser 1980). By way of introduction we provide a brief survey of the development of studies in Czech word-formation. (For details from the history of Czech linguistic Bohemistics see Karlík et al. 2007: 249−280.) An awareness of the semantic and formal connection of words, of word-composition, the competition between expressive and semantic means and the need for a formulation of the rules for the formation of new words has gradually emerged in Czech linguistics. Thus, in the first Czech grammar, the so-called Náměšťská mluvnice (Optát, Gzel and

158. Czech

2873

Philomates 1533, in 1571 arranged and extended by Jan Blahoslav; Čejka, Šlosar and Nechutová 1991) there appear first notes on word-formation (offered chiefly in the form of stylistic explanations). A contribution to the development of word-formation theory was made by Vavřinec Benedikt of Nudožer in his grammar of 1603. He was the first to describe suffixes as word-formation means (he did so in the explication of the etymology of words, elsewhere he offered notes on word-formation in connection with the declension of words). The most valuable contribution to word-formation in its time, however, was provided by Václav Jan Rosa in his Čechořečnost, seu Grammatica linguae Bohemicae (1672), who placed word-formation mainly in the chapters “De syntaxi” and “De etymologia” and complemented some of his explications of word-formation by remarks on declension. Rosa did not always define the direction of the word-formation process correctly, in fact he did not attempt to do so. What is valuable in his work is primarily the fact that he a) arrived at the complementary character of the distribution of some suffixes (-ství, -stvo; -ec, -ík), b) divided the compounds according to the word class of their parts, and c) was the first to take into consideration “compounds” with a “prefix” (zástolí ‘feast; lit. behind-table-NOMINAL.INFL’, podhoří ‘foot of the mountain; lit. below-mountain-NOMINAL.INFL’). Another grammar from the pre-Dobrovský period is that by Jan Václav Pohl (1756). One of the word-formation topics in this grammar is gender alternation in nouns (medvěd ‘bear’ − medvědice ‘she bear’). Word-formation as an independent discipline with a new conception (based mainly on the recognition of the structure of forms) was introduced by Josef Dobrovský in his German-Czech dictionary (1802−21), and the Czech grammar (1819 [1809]). His article on word-formation had been originally attached to Tomsa’s dictionary of 1791 and became part of the first edition of his grammar; another work Die Bildsamkeit der slavischen Sprache [(Word-)Formation of the Slavic Language] was published in 1799. Dobrovský succeeded in distinguishing the basis of the inner structure of words, in that he proceeded from the roots of words and ascribed to them a combinatory character typical for individual types of words. By understanding the inner structure of words, Dobrovský laid the foundations for the scholarly word-formation of Czech; later positivist and structuralist studies were based on his work. Dobrovský’s explanation of the incorrectness of arbitrary word-formation were also of considerable practical effect, especially for the translation of German compounds (which was customary at that time). He rightly pointed out that it was necessary to proceed from the “natural”, indigenous features of Czech, its scientific description, and the knowledge of the structure of contemporary words, including colloquial ones. These ideas are substantial and topical to this day. Dobrovský was followed by Jan Gebauer. In his Mluvnice česká pro školy střední a ústavy učitelské [Czech Grammar for Secondary Schools and Teachers’ Institutes] (1901), he similarly declared that the choice of the means of expression should be in line with the “language-creating spirit of the nation”. According to Gebauer, the source of changes in the language is man’s psychic activity; the need for new name-giving is extra-linguistic. František Trávníček provided a synchronic description of word-formation in his Mluvnice spisovné češtiny [Grammar of Standard Czech] (1948). He systematically described the word-formation elements (roots, stems, affixes, though he did not regard the formation of stems as the core of word-forming processes). Trávníček placed his findings between the chapters on phonetics and morphology, at the same time trying not to sever word-formation from lexicology. Therefore, the introduction to the chapter on word-

2874

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

formation provides a general characteristics of words and their denotative, expressive and grammatical meanings. He differentiated words that are etymologically related (forming a kind of word family, though no longer dependent on one another), from dependent (derived and base words) and etymologically primary words. Vladimír Šmilauer, on the other hand, did not give a historical overview in his Novočeské tvoření slov [Contemporary Czech Word-Formation] (written 1937/38, published 1971). He proceeded from the “idea” (thought) and emphasized the creative aspect of naming. A novelty, and a meritorious one, is the inclusion of collocations (multi-word expressions) into his word-formation. A fundamental and ground-breaking work of modern Czech word-formation theory is Miloš Dokulil’s also internationally known and recognized Tvoření slov v češtině. Vol. 1: Teorie odvozování slov [Czech Word-Formation. Vol. 1: The Theory of Word-Derivation] (1962) and Tvoření slov v češtině. Vol. 2: Odvozování podstatných jmen [Czech WordFormation. Vol. 2: Derivation of Nouns] (Daneš, Dokulil and Kuchař 1967). Dokulil developed the methodology of word-formation research and more consistently and precisely revealed the regularities of word-formation processes and relations. Being aware of the genetic aspect of word-formation, he presented a functional approach − by linking word-formation with onomasiology (in an entirely synchronic framework). Dokulil showed that the linguistic equivalent of a concept is not exclusively the word, but the denomination. In this manner he linked up with Mathesius’s understanding of denomination (Mathesius 1947), made it more profound and thus enabled the further development of onomasiology. Particularly important in this connection is Dokulil’s definition of onomasiological categories. He explained them as “types of the inner structuring of the concept, in view of its expression in the given language [...], i.e. as basic conceptual structures establishing the foundations of naming activity in the given language” (Dokulil 1962: 225). Dokulil’s definition and systematization of word-formation means, the definition of some concepts (such as the word-formation process, type, category and formant, productivity, etc.) are also of importance for modern word-formation. His theoretical explications were made more profound in Daneš, Dokulil and Kuchař (1967) with the following hierarchy of description: word-formation procedure, word-formation category, word-formation types. The development of post-Dokulil word-formation theory to the present shows mainly a continuation in the “traditional” line of research along the intentions of structuralist linguistics. At the same time it has been shown that the study of onomasiological and word-formation structures can serve the discovery and revealing of cognitive processes − the cognitive approach confirms the validity of Dokulil’s theory of onomasiological categories (for details see Bozděchová 2009).

2. General overview In the sense of structural typology, represented in Czech linguistics by Skalička (1951) in the framework of the structuralist paradigm of the Prague linguistic circle, and further developed and complemented especially by Popela and Sgall (see Lotko 1999), Czech represents an inflectional language. Because of its extensive derivational possibilities, it can form large word-families.

158. Czech

2875

Czech makes use chiefly of derivation (prefixation and suffixation), less frequently of composition. From its inflectional character simultaneously follows a limited use of affixless derivation, especially conversion in its narrower sense (see Dokulil et al. 1986: 201−202). In nominal word-formation, use is made of several hundreds of suffixes, with the possibility to regularly derive verbal nouns, which considerably increases the number of nouns in general. Prefixation is most frequent in deverbal derivation. A typical feature of Czech is the high degree of functional homonymy and the polysemy of affixes. As Čermák (2010: 195) points out, there is an average of ca. 31 derivatives of one root. Whereas nominal roots are most numerous, most of the derivatives are linked to verbal roots. The most frequent nominal roots (30) each form on average 50–100 derivatives and compounds. Several word-formation types are characterized by a high degree of regularity which can be compared to that of grammatical morphemes, for instance, the derivation of female nouns from masculine nouns, especially designations of professions, titles and surnames. For pragmatic purposes Czech extensively uses the category of diminutives; their number is one of the highest along the Slavic languages. Another typical feature of inflectional languages is the frequency of morphonemic alternations. Compared to Polish, for instance, Czech is richer in alternations in wordformation (and similarly also in morphological paradigms), see Lotko (1999, 2009: 11). The higher degree of inflectional features, i.e. the obligatory expression of lexico-grammatical meanings by the aid of word-formation affixes, is also reflected in the perfectivation of verbs of foreign origin (Cz. organizovat ipf. vs. z-organizovat pf. ‘to organize’, kvalifikovat ipf. vs. do-kvalifikovat pf. ‘to qualify’). To a different degree, this takes place in all Slavic languages, but most intensively in Czech (see Lotko 1999, 2009: 12; in standard Russian, for instance, numerous loan verbs are biaspectual, i.e. depending on the context, they can express the meaning of both aspects without formal differentiation). The typological profile of Czech also causes a certain limitation on the influx of foreign words into Czech and prevents an excessive acceptance of ready-made namings from foreign languages. Admittedly, this feature of Czech is somewhat weakened in the newest vocabulary, chiefly under the influence of extra-linguistic factors (internationalization of its vocabulary). At the same time, the use of foreign, especially international, word-formation elements (neoclassical word-formation) is traditionally characteristic or dominant for certain word-formation types and contents, cf. the naming of trends and movements and their members (panslavismus ‘panslavism’, kapitalista ‘capitalist’) or the expression of augmentation/intensification (superkvalita ‘super-quality’, supravodivý ‘super-conductive’, hyperkorektnost ‘hyper-correctness’). In Czech, as already mentioned, derivation plays a far more important role than composition. There exist close mutual relations of word-formation and inflectional morphology, yet there are other ways of word-formation combining syntactical and morphological means (composition in the narrower sense of the term, and juxtaposition whose means are very close to those on the syntactical level of language), and so-called semantic derivation (metaphor, metonymy). The combination of derivation and composition is also relatively frequent in Czech word-formation. There are two main types of compounds, traditionally distinguished and referred to as compounds proper and improper, the former being more common and frequent. The difference between them consists in the fact that the compounds proper are entirely independent of the (possibly) coexisting collocations unlike improper compounds, which still distinctly refer to the collocation from which

2876

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

they have originated (differing from them only by the presence of the unifying word stress and their compound spelling). In Czech, word-formation by derivation and composition is clearly differentiated from established multi-word expressions/units (collocations). These include above all terms and phraseologisms; as a rule these are two-word, sometimes multiple-word namings, nominal and verbal, with a determinative relationship between the members. The most frequent structural types include A+N (volný čas ‘free time’, kočka domácí, with the adjective postposed, ‘domestic cat’), N+N (matematik analytik ‘mathematician analyst’, hod oštěpem ‘javelin throw; lit. throw (n.) + javelin-INSTR’), V+N (brát lék ‘to take a medicine’, dávat pozor ‘to pay (lit. give) attention, mind’). Although synthetic, morpho-suffixal word-formation prevails over morpho-syntactic word-formation, there exists a very productive process of univerbation. In Slavic studies this term is traditionally used for a combination of ellipsis and affixation of an underlying multi-word expression (see also article 42 on multi-word expressions and univerbation in Slavic). It is primarily a means of linguistic economy in spoken language, frequently accompanied by the loss of the official character of the designation, or by the development of a pragmatic feature, e.g., informality (kruhový objezd ‘roundabout traffic; lit. circle-REL.ADJ. bypass’ → kruháč ‘round-about’, mikrovlnná trouba ‘microwave; lit. microwave-REL.ADJ tube, oven’ → mikrovlnka ‘id.’). In the last few decades we witness a significant growth of compounds, especially in the formation of nouns and adjectives. According to Lotko (2009: 28), 27.29 % of the neologisms registered in the dictionary Nová slova v češtině [New Words in Czech] (Martincová 1998) are compounds. Important factors are internationalization and intellectualization, the attempt at greater explicitness of expression, e.g., in specialized communication (see also article 127 on word-formation and technical languages), the enhancement of expressivity, uniqueness and topicality in artistic texts. Much as in other Slavic languages hybrid compounds are productive and frequently used in contemporary Czech: 75 % of 76 root morphemes listed as entries in Nová slova v češtině are morphemes of foreign origin (cf. Lotko 2009: 28, referring to Komárek 1999). As in other Slavic languages, they convey typologically foreign, especially Anglo-American elements and cause typological changes through increased analytic features. At the wordformation level, the changes are attested mainly by analytical constructions (for instance, compounds without linking vowels, such as web server). Moreover, the element web in this designation is regarded by some Czech linguists as an “analytical, indeclinable adjective” in contrast to webový (relational adjective) server (see also article 43 on compounds and multi-word expressions in Slavic, section 4.3). Such constructions are represented by combinations of international and domestic elements, as in the following most frequent types: 1. Multi-word denominations with a preposed indeclinable attribute (see above) (web server ‘web server’, IT specialista ‘IT specialist’); 2. Hybrid compounds (vitamín D-dependent); 3. Derivatives from abbreviations (SMSkování ‘SMS sending; lit. SMS-ACTION’, Djovat ‘to be a DJ’, V.I.P.ky ‘VIP women; lit. VIP-FEM.PL’); 4. New compounds, including one-letter and numeric elements (3D animovaný snímek ‘3D animated picture’, software engineer J2EE). They are found chiefly in specialized and journalistic expressions (for greater details, see Bozděchová 2010a, b; see also article 127 on word-formation and technical languages).

158. Czech

2877

3. Composition In Czech, composition represents, alongside derivation, the second main type of wordformation. In principle, a distinction is drawn between the processes of proper (= pure) composition and of synthetic (= combined) composition (using affixes along with word stems). These two types are significantly different, especially as to the following aspects: their motivation, onomasiological structure, and the character of composition. In general, synthetic (combined) composition is far more frequent than proper composition. Synchronic description and classifications of compounds are usually based on a) their f o r m / s t r u c t u r e ; see, e.g., Dokulil et al. 1986: proper = pure composition, synthetic = combined, complex composition, i.e. combination of composition and derivation or conversion, and juxtaposition, or b) the s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n between the components (cf. Šmilauer 1971; Bozděchová 1994: determinative and copulative compounds). Determinative compounds can be word/stem compounds (e.g., čtvrtrok ‘quarter of a year; lit. quarter-year’, G. Vierteljahr), or synthetic compounds, i.e. combined with affixation (e.g., hrom-o-bit-í obsolete ‘thunderstorm; lit. thunder-o-strike-ABSTR’, celo-svět-ov-ý ‘world-wide; lit. whole-o-world-ADJ’). The semantic relation between the components of copulative compounds is coordination, e.g., jih-o-východ ‘South-East’, česko-anglický ‘Czech-English’. Proper and synthetic compounds most frequently have the linking vowel -o-, rarely -i- or -e-/-ě- (ledoborec ‘icebreaker’, vědecko-fantastický ‘sci-fi’, vlastivěda ‘national history; lit. homeland-science’, světlezelený ‘light green’). The distinction between proper and synthetic compounds in some nouns depends on the interpretation of their syntactic base: časoměřič ‘timekeeper’ − either as composed from čas ‘time’ + měřič ‘keeper’ or as composed and derived from the phrase ten, kdo měří čas ‘someone who measures time’. “Improper compounds” are formed by juxtaposition (okamžik ‘moment; lit. oko-GEN ‘eye’ + mžik ‘blink (of an eye)’, G. Augenblick, znovuotevření ‘re-opening; lit. newly opening’, pravděpodobný ‘probable; lit. truth-DAT-similar’, důvěryhodný ‘trustworthy; lit. trust-GEN-worthy’). Determinative compounds are predominantly represented by nouns and adjectives, less often by numerals, adverbs or verbs. Copulative compounds and juxtaposition are more frequently represented by adjectives than by nouns. A traditional domain of compounds is specialized communication and public texts; at the moment, compounds are also more frequently penetrating into literary texts and common communication. Alongside domestic formations, compounds are taken over and formed with foreign elements (especially international, of Graeco-Latin and, more recently with growing frequency, of English origin), traditionally mainly in terminology. Increasing productivity is exhibited, also outside specialized language, by hybrid formations.

3.1. Nominal compounds 3.1.1. Determinative compounds Nominal determinative compounds (including numerous calques) name similar conceptual areas as derived nouns (see section 4.1), including persons, means, actions, bearers

2878

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

of properties, etc. (národohospodář ‘national economist’, elektroměr ‘electricity meter’, rukopis ‘hand-writing’, myšilov ‘mouse catcher’); compared to derivatives, however, compounds reflect the onomasiological structure more explicitly (Bozděchová 2013, 2014). The most important and most frequent structural types are the following: a) Compounds proper A+N: černozem ‘black soil’, novostavba ‘new building’, velkoodběratel ‘wholesale customer; lit. big-customer’, malorolník ‘small farmer’; N+N: jazykověda ‘linguistics; lit. language-science’, rybolov ‘fishing; lit. fish-catching’; Num+N: dvojhlas ‘two-part singing, duet; lit. two-voice’, půlhodina ‘half-hour’; Pron+N: samohláska ‘vowel; lit. self-sound’, všelék ‘cure-all; lit. all-medicine’; b) Synthetic compounds: neither the combination of the first two components nor the second component + suffix (or a result of conversion) exist as independent words (see also article 33 on synthetic compounds in German); N+V+SUFF: roman-o-pis-ec ‘novelist; lit. novel-o-write-AGENT’, moř-e-plav-ec ‘seafarer; lit. sea-o-swim-AGENT’ (composition + suffixation); pivovar ‘brewery; lit. beer-o-brew-0̸’, zpravodaj ‘reporter, correspondent; lit. newso-give-0̸’, dějepis ‘history; lit. history-e-write-0̸’, plynovod ‘gas pipeline; gas-o-conduct/convey-0̸’ (composition + conversion); Adv+V+SUFF: dalekohled ‘binoculars; lit. far-see-0̸’, pravopis ‘orthography, spelling; lit. correct-o-write-0̸’ (composition + conversion); A+N+SUFF: such-o-zem-ec ‘landsman, mainlander; lit. dry-o-land-PERS’, vysokopecař ‘furnace worker; lit. high-o-stove-PERS’ (composition + suffixation); zlatohlav ‘gold brocade; lit. gold(en)-o-head-0̸’ (composition + conversion = exocentric compound); N+N+SUFF: nos-o-rož-ec ‘rhinoceros; lit. nose-o-horn-SUFF’ (composition + suffixation); Num+N+SUFF: čtyřstěn ‘tetrahedron; lit. four-wall-0̸’, dvouverší ‘distich; lit. two-lineINFL’ (composition + conversion).

3.1.2. Copulative compounds Copulative compound nouns are mainly specialized terms, e.g., lesostep ‘forest-steppe’, jihozápad ‘South-West’.

3.1.3. Neoclassical compounds Many neoclassical initial components are productive in the formation of nouns, such as auto-, elektro-, radio-, foto- (autoscénář ‘auto-scenario’, elektrometr ‘electrometer’, radiomechanika ‘radio-technique’, fotodokument ‘photo-document’), cf. also components with numeral and quantifying meanings (mono-, mikro-, poly-). The second elements of neoclassical compounds frequently express an abstract meaning, e.g., -grafie ‘-graphy’, -logie ‘-logy’ (kardiografie ‘cardiography’, venerologie ‘venereology’), etc.

158. Czech

2879

Some neoclassical components can be considered either compound components or prefixes (see Martincová and Savický 1987). They are productive and alive especially with the following meanings: a) Intensification, e.g., ultra-: ultraradikál (n.) ‘ultra-radical’, ultrazáření ‘ultraradiation’, arci-: arcikritik ‘hypercritic’; b) Rank, e.g., arci-: arcivévoda ‘archduke’; vice-: vicepremiér ‘vice-premier’; c) Non-genuineness and pretense, e.g., kvazi-: kvaziumělec ‘quasi-artist’; pseudo-: pseudověda ‘pseudo-science’; d) Time (former function), e.g., ex-: exposlanec ‘ex-member of Parliament’, exnáměstek ‘ex-deputy’.

3.2. Adjectival compounds In contemporary Czech, adjectival compounds are more frequently formed than compound nouns. The reason is mainly the growth of multi-word expressions, from which r e l a t i o n a l adjectives are formed. There is a predominance of synthetic compounds (i.e. a combination of composition + suffixation), e.g., vysokohorský ‘alpine; lit. high-omountain-ADJ’, pravdomluvný ‘truthful; lit. truth-o-speak-ADJ’, and, to a higher degree than with nouns, also copulative compounds (analyticko-syntetický ‘analytic-synthetic’). The following may serve as examples of copulative compounds consisting of qualitative adjectives: sladkokyselý ‘sweet-and-sour; lit. sweet-o-sour’, zelenomodrý ‘greenand-blue; lit. green-o-blue’, hluchoněmý ‘deaf-mute; lit. deaf-o-mute’. Neoclassical word-formation is used for the expression of a broad spectrum of meanings, e.g., intensification or pretense (ultraradikální ‘ultra-radical’, kvazivědecký ‘quasiscientific’); on the intermediate position of these formations between composition and prefixation see also section 3.1.3.

3.2.1. Determinative adjectival compounds Determinative adjectival compounds are mostly denominal (slovnědruhový ‘part-ofspeech (adj.); lit. word-ě-class-REL.ADJ’ ← slovní druh ‘part of speech; lit. word-REL.ADJ class’) and deverbal (samonabíjecí ‘self-charging’ ← sám nabíjí lit. ‘(sth.) self charges’, dobročinný ‘charitable’ ← dobrý čin ‘good deed’). They are chiefly related to the following types of nominal collocations: A+N a) personal nouns, including proper names: velk-o-pan-ský ‘aristocratic’ (← velký pán ‘noble man’), svatopetrský ‘St. Peter(’s)’ (← svatý Petr); b) names of objects and abstract notions: kamen-o-uhel-ný ‘stone-coal’ (← kamenné uhlí ‘stone coal’), křesťanskodemokratický ‘Christian-democratic’ (← křesťanská demokracie ‘Christian democracy’); c) names of categories of human activity: estetick-o-výchov-ný ‘referring to esthetic education’ (← estetická výchova ‘esthetic education’), zahraničněpolitický ‘foreignpolicy’ (adj.) (← zahraniční politika ‘foreign policy’);

2880

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

d) names of scientific and technical concepts, methods, etc.: nízk-o-procent-ní ‘lowpercentage’ (adj.) (← nízké procento ‘low percentage’); e) names of time and quantifying data: každ-o-den-ní ‘every-day’ (adj.) (← každý den ‘every day’), novoroční ‘new-year’s’ (← nový rok ‘new year’); f) common nouns and toponyms: před-o-patrový ‘hard palate’ (adj.) (← přední patro ‘hard palate’), latinskoamerický ‘Latin-American’ (← Latinská Amerika ‘Latin America’), velkopopovický ‘from Velké Popovice’ (← Velké Popovice (toponym)); Num+N dv-ou-litr-ový ‘two-litre’ (adj.) (← dva litry ‘two litres’), několikatisícový ‘several-thousand’ (adj.) (← několik tisíc ‘several thousands’); N+V čas-o-měr-ný ‘chronometric’ (← měřit čas ‘to measure time’), světoběžný ‘globetrotter’ (adj.) (← běžet světem ‘to run through the world’); Adv+V daleko-sáh-lý ‘far-reaching’ (← sahat daleko ‘to reach far’), novorozený ‘newly-born’ (← nově rozený ‘newly born’); Pron+V sam-o-čin-ný ‘self-acting’ (← sám činí lit. ‘self acts’).

3.2.2. Copulative compounds Copulative adjectival compounds are mostly denominal, they are chiefly related to the following types of names: a) personal nouns, including proper names: dodavatelsko-odběratelský ‘supplier-customer’ (← dodavatel ‘supplier’, odběratel ‘customer’), cyrilometodějský ‘CyriloMethodian’ (← Cyril a Metoděj ‘Cyril and Methodius’); b) geographical names: labsko-oderský ‘Elbe-Oder’ (← Labe ‘Elbe’, Odra ‘Oder’); c) abstract nouns: hygienicko-zdravotnický ‘concerning hygiene and sanitation’ (← hygiena ‘hygiene’, zdravotnictví ‘sanitation’), metodologicko-teoretický ‘methodological-theoretical’ (← metodologie ‘methodology’, teorie ‘theory’). Copulative adjectival compounds are either written together (vědeckotechnický ‘scientific and technical’), or with a hyphen (formálně-obsahový ‘concerning form and content’ ← forma a obsah ‘form and content’). For further details see Bozděchová (1994: 154−160).

3.3. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds are very rare in Czech. Mostly they name abstract activities: blahopřát ‘to congratulate; lit. good-wish’. New compound verbs are formed only on a limited scale, most often they belong to the type Adv+V, e.g., znovuzískat ‘to regain’ (← získat znovu lit. ‘to get anew’), spolupracovat ‘to cooperate’ (← pracovat spolu ‘to work together’).

158. Czech

2881

3.4. Adverbial compounds Czech has few adverbial (mostly reduplicative) compounds (dennodenně ‘daily’ (adv.) ← denní ‘daily’ (adj.)) and adverbial linkages, often idiomatic (jakživ ‘never ever; lit. as alive’, zničehonic ‘all of a sudden; lit. from nothing nothing’). Adverbial compounds chiefly name circumstances of manner, dimension or time (obouruč ‘with both hands’, střemhlav ‘headfirst’, polosedě ‘half-sitting’, každopádně ‘in any case’, nesčíslněkrát ‘countless times’). Adverbial compounds have a similar onomasiological structure and naming value as adverbs derived from adjectival compounds − unlike adverbial compounds the latter are very live and productive in contemporary Czech, e.g., jednostranně ‘unilaterally’ (← jednostranný ‘unilateral’), zlomyslně ‘mischievously’ (← zlomyslný ‘mischievous’), národohospodářsky ‘national-economically’ (← národohospodářský ‘national-economic’).

4. Derivation Derivation represents the main word-formation procedure in Czech. Its starting point may be: a) a complete word (in the case of pure prefixation − pra-člověk ‘prehistoric man’), b) the stem of the basic word (knihov-ník ‘librarian’ ← knihovna ‘library’, půjčka ‘loan’ ← půjčit ‘to loan’), c) a morphological form of the word, either a simple one (adjectivization of participles − vyspěl-ý ‘mature’ ← vyspěl ‘he matured’), or a prepositional phrase (předvánoční ‘pre-Christmas’ ← před Vánoci ‘before Christmas’). Fundamental derivational processes rest upon the extension of the base by an affix. They include suffixation (characteristic of nouns and adjectives), prefixation (especially characteristic of verbs, but also productive in nouns and adjectives), conversion and combined processes (usually based on an underlying prepositional phrase), e.g., prefixation and suffixation (bezdomovec ‘homeless person’ ← bez domova ‘without home’) and prefixation and conversion (zámoří ‘overseas countries’ ← za mořem ‘over the sea’). Derivation is often accompanied by some phonic modification (alternation of sounds) of the word-base; as an independent procedure of word-formation phonic modification is unknown in Czech, cf. Dokulil (1962: 246; cited after the English summary): “In Czech, sound alternation usually performs the role of a mere concomitant component of the formation element, accompanying one of the basic word-formation procedures. The alternation of the phonic form of the base may be either dependent on the phonic environment (combinatory) or independent of it (isolated).” A great functional load is imposed by derivational morphology on the shortening of vowels (yet there are no really productive types). Shortening is chiefly characteristic of nouns (with the suffixes -č, -tel, -dlo, -tko) derived from verbs with a long vowel in the base, e.g., prodávat ‘to sell’ → prodavač ‘seller’, skládat ‘to compose’ → skladatel ‘composer’, létat ‘to fly’ → letadlo ‘airplane’. Vowel-lengthening in the base is productive only with some word-formation types of diminutives (list ‘leaf’ → lístek ‘leaflet’), and others.

2882

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.1. Nominal derivation The chief word-formation means is suffixation, some suffixes serve almost a constant function (-tel: agent nouns; -ost, -ství: abstract nouns; -dlo: instrument nouns), while others have a large range of functions (-ek, -ík, -ka, -ice, -ko, -ák, -ár). (See the list of patterns of suffixation according to classes of base words, gender and other semantic criteria in Dokulil et al. 1986: 231−450.)

4.1.1. Denominal nouns Nouns are derived by so-called true prefixes (in pure prefixation), e.g., ne- in the meaning of negation (nepořádek ‘disorder’), pře- expressing emphasis (přemíra ‘surplus’), pa- with the meaning of alleged similarity (pa-klíč ‘false key’), etc. and with prefixes of prepositional origin (so-called untrue prefixes), especially with temporal or local meaning: do-poledne ‘forenoon’, před-pokoj ‘anteroom’, proti-směr ‘opposite direction’ (cf. Dokulil et al. 1986: 311−312). In the case of nouns, combined prefixal-suffixal word-formation is more common, e.g., ná-hrdel-ník ‘necklace; lit. on-neck-SUFF’ (← hrdlo ‘neck’), proti-nož-ec ‘antipodean (loan translation); lit. anti-foot-SUFF’ (← noha ‘foot’) as well as a combination of prefixation and conversion, e.g., bez-větř-í ‘calm, doldrums; lit. without-wind-INFL’ (← vítr ‘wind’), sou-hvězd-í ‘constellation (loan translation); lit. together/with-star-INFL’ (← hvězda ‘star’). In the realm of suffixation, p e r s o n a l n o u n s name a person according to occupation and interests. Productive suffixes are, e.g., -ař/-ář (knihař ‘bookbinder’ ← kniha ‘book’, železničář ‘railwayman’ ← železnice ‘railway’), less productive -ník (lesník ‘forester’ ← les ‘forest’), unproductive -ák (vodák ‘paddler’ ← voda ‘water’). The most used foreign suffixes comprise -ik (metodik ‘methodologist’ ← metoda ‘method’) and -ista (saxofonista ‘saxophonist’ ← saxofon ‘saxophone’, pozitivista ‘positivist’ ← pozitivismus ‘positivism’). Nouns denoting persons according to their origin and habitation are derived by the productive suffixes -an (jižan ‘Southerner’ ← jih ‘South’, Američan ‘American’ (n.) ← Amerika ‘America’), -ec (Ukrajinec ‘Ukrainian’ (n.) ← Ukrajina ‘Ukraine’), and -ák (horák ‘mountaineer’ ← hora ‘mountain’, Žižkovák ‘inhabitant of Žižkov’). P l a c e n o u n s are formed with the productive suffixes -iště (ohniště ‘fireplace’ ← oheň ‘fire’) and -na with variants (kotelna ‘boiler room’ ← kotel ‘boiler’, drůbežárna ‘poultry farm’ ← drůbež ‘poultry’); the suffixes -ník and -nice are less productive (holubník ‘pigeon loft’ ← holub ‘pigeon’, chmelnice ‘hop garden’ ← chmel ‘hop’). D i m i n u t i v e s denote smaller or emotionally close, beloved objects; they are very numerous and productive in Czech. The most productive suffixes are -ka, -ko, -ek, -ík (lžička ‘teaspoon’ ← lžíce ‘spoon’, slůvko ‘little word’ ← slovo ‘word’, motýlek ‘small butterfly’ ← motýl ‘butterfly’); many diminutives have secondary, specialized, meanings (mečík ‘little sword’ and ‘gladiolus’ ← meč ‘sword’, stolička ‘little chair, stool’ and ‘molar’ ← stůl ‘table’). Names of f e m a l e p e r s o n s (occasionally other living beings) are derived from masculine names by means of the productive suffixes -ka, -(k)yně, and -ice (lingvistka

158. Czech

2883

‘woman linguist’, přítelkyně ‘female friend’ ← přítel ‘friend’; lvice ‘lioness’ ← lev ‘lion’); with female surnames: -ová (Nováková ← Novák). Names of y o u n g b e i n g s (young animals, rarely persons) are formed by conversion and with the endings of the neuter gender -ě/-e (medvídě ‘young bear’ ← medvěd ‘bear’, ptáče ‘young bird’ ← pták ‘bird’). C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s are formed by the productive suffixes -stvo/-ctvo, -í/-oví (mužstvo ‘team; lit. man-COLL’ ← muž ‘man’, lidstvo ‘mankind’ ← lid ‘people’, křoví ‘bushes’ ← keř ‘bush’).

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns A b s t r a c t n o u n s can be derived by means of the productive suffixes -ost, -ství/-ctví, -ina (moudrost ‘wisdom’ ← moudrý ‘wise’, křesťanství ‘Christianity’ ← křesťanský ‘Christian’). A t t r i b u t i v e n o u n s (designations of persons, animals, plants, and objects according to their characteristic or alleged properties or features) are derived by the productive suffixes -ec, -ík, -ka, -ice (poctivec ‘fair man’ ← poctivý ‘fair’, poledník ‘meridian’ ← polední ‘noon (adj.)’, bělice ‘dace’ ← bílý ‘white’); less productive is -ák (dobrák ‘good guy’ ← dobrý ‘good’). A special group of attributive nouns is constituted by derivatives designating languages, e.g., čeština ‘Czech language’ (← český ‘Czech’), angličtina ‘English language’ (← anglický ‘English’).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns A c t i o n n o u n s can be formed by means of the following productive suffixes: -n(í), -t(í), -ot, -ek/-k, -ba, -ka (pískání ‘whistling’ ← pískat ‘to whistle’, škrábnutí ‘scratching’ ← škrábnout ‘to scratch’, skřípot ‘creak’ ← skřípat ‘to creak’, spánek ‘sleeping, sleep’ ← spát ‘to sleep’, střelba ‘shooting’ ← střelit/střílet ‘to shoot’, hádka ‘quarrel’ ← hádat se ‘to quarrel’). R e s u l t n o u n s : productive suffixes are -ek/-k, -ka (odlitek ‘casting’ ← odlít ‘to cast’, vykopávka ‘excavation’ ← vykopat ‘to dig out’); the suffix -ina is less productive (rozvalina ‘ruin’ ← rozvalit ‘to ruin’). A g e n t n o u n s comprise designations of persons (rarely of animals, plants or inanimate objects) according to a characteristic activity. Productive suffixes are: -el, -č and its variants -ač/-eč (hostitel ‘host’ ← hostit ‘to host’, posluchač ‘listener’ ← poslouchat ‘to listen’) and the foreign suffixes -ant, -ent, -or (demonstrant ‘demonstrator’ ← demonstrovat ‘to demonstrate’, asistent ‘assistent’ ← asistovat ‘to assist’, revizor ‘inspector’ ← revidovat ‘to inspect’). The following suffixes are less productive: -ce, -ec, -ník (ochránce ‘protector’ ← ochránit ‘to protect’, letec ‘flyer, aviator’ ← letět ‘to fly’, tlumočník ‘interpreter’ ← tlumočit ‘to interprete’). I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s are derived with the productive suffixes -č (drtič ‘crusher’ ← drtit ‘to crush’, vypínač ‘switch’ ← vypínat ‘to switch’), -čka (vysílačka ‘transmitter’ ← vysílat ‘to transmit’), -dlo and its variants -adlo/-idlo (rozpouštědlo ‘solvent’ ← rozpouštět ‘to dissolve’, držadlo ‘handle’ ← držet ‘to handle’), and the less productive

2884

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

suffixes -ník, -nice, -ka, -ák, -ivo (cedník ‘strainer’ ← cedit ‘to strain’, zápalka ‘match’ ← zapálit ‘to light up’, padák ‘parachute’ ← padat ‘to fall’, léčivo ‘medicine’ ← léčit ‘to cure’). P l a c e n o u n s can be formed by means of the suffixes -iště, -na and their variants (hřiště ‘playground’ ← hrát (si) ‘to play’, studovna ‘study-room’ ← studovat ‘to study’).

4.2. Adjectival derivation Adjectives are mainly derived by suffixation. Semantically, they can be distinguished into relational (městský ‘municipal’ ← město ‘town, city’) and qualitative adjectives (otcovský ‘fatherly, paternal’ ← otec ‘father’), although the boundary between the two groups is usually not clearly defined, cf. lidský ‘human, concerning people’ vs. lidský ‘humane, kind’ (Dokulil et al. 1986: 320).

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives R e l a t i o n a l adjectives express a relation to a) animate beings: Possessive adjectives, i.e. adjectives establishing a referential/genitival relationship with the person designated by the base, are formed (almost without formal limitation) from masculine nouns with the suffix -ův (autorův ‘author’s’ ← autor) and from feminine nouns with the suffix -in (sestřin ‘sister’s’ ← sestra). Other relational adjectives are derived by means of the suffixes -í, -ský/-cký (lví ‘lion’s’ ← lev ‘lion’, dámský ‘lady’s’ ← dáma ‘lady’, chlapecký ‘boy’s’ ← chlapec ‘boy’); b) inanimate objects and concepts: The suffixes -ový, -ný, -ní are productive (jahodový ‘strawberry’ ← jahoda, hedvábný ‘silk’ ← hedvábí, bezpečnostní ‘safety’ (adj.) ← bezpečnost). Numerous adjectives with the suffixes -ský/-cký, -ní are related to names of places (pražský ‘Prague’ (adj.) ← Praha, zámecký ‘castle’ (adj.) ← zámek, státní ‘state’ (adj.) ← stát); c) material or origin: These adjectives are formed with the suffixes -ěný/ený, -ový (hliněný ‘clay’ (adj.) ← hlína, porcelánový ‘porcelain’ (adj.) ← porcelán). Adjectives of Graeco-Latin origin are most frequently adapted with the suffix -ní, less frequently -(i)cký (relativní ‘relative’, tematický ‘thematic’). Q u a l i t a t i v e adjectives denoting p o s s e s s i o n are derived with the suffixes -ný, -ivý (něžný ‘tender’ ← něha ‘tenderness’, důvěřivý ‘trustful’ ← důvěra ‘trust’), a quantitative nuance can be expressed by the suffix -atý (okatý ‘big-eyed’ ← oko ‘eye’). Adjectives denoting s i m i l a r i t y are derived with the suffix -ovitý (kašovitý ‘mushy’ ← kaše ‘mush’, válcovitý ‘cylinder-shaped’ ← válec ‘cylinder’). This suffix is extensively used in specialized botanical and zoological names (růžovité ‘Rosaceae’ ← růže ‘rose’, kočkovité ‘feline’ ← kočka ‘cat’).

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Prefixes can express a n e g a t i v e meaning, e.g., ne- (nehezký ‘non-pretty’), i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n , e.g., pra-, pře- (pradávný ‘ancient’ ← dávný ‘bygone’, překrásný ‘gorgeous’

158. Czech

2885

← krásný ‘beautiful’), or an a l l e g e d q u a l i t y, e.g., pa- (paumělecký ‘pseudo-artistic’). Negative nuances can also be expressed by prefixal-suffixal adjectives (na-slád-lý ‘sweetish’ ← sladký ‘sweet’, za-žlout-lý ‘yellowed’ ← žlutý ‘yellow’, pobledlý ‘colourless’ ← bledý ‘pale’). Suffixal deadjectival adjectives express relative degrees of properties: the formation of the c o m p a r a t i v e can be included here. This procedure is productive with qualitative adjectives, the basic groups using the suffixes -ej-ší/-ěj-ší, -ší (veselejší ‘more cheerful’ ← veselý ‘cheerful’, hloupější ‘duller’ ← hloupý ‘dull’, mladší ‘younger’ ← mladý ‘young’). Deadjectival adjectives expressing i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and a p p r o x i m a t i o n are formed with the poorly productive suffixes -atý, -ánský (malinkatý ‘too little’ ← malinký ‘little’, velikánský ‘too big’ ← veliký ‘big’) and -avý (modravý ‘bluish’ ← modrý ‘blue’). Adjectives expressing e n d e a r m e n t are derived from adjectives by means of the suffixes -ičký, -inký, -oučký, -ounký (maličký ‘very small’ ← malý ‘little’, teninký ‘very thin’ ← tenký ‘thin’, běloučký ‘very white’ ← bílý ‘white’, milounký ‘very dear’ ← milý ‘dear’).

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal adjectives with a c t i v e meaning are (synchronically) formed with the suffix -cí and its variants -ou-cí, -í-cí, -ejí-cí, -ají-cí (e.g., volající ‘screaming’ ← volat ‘to scream’, kupující ‘buying’ ← kupovat ‘to buy’) or with -lý (which goes back to the active past tense participle), e.g., přistěhovalý ‘moved in’ (← přistěhovat ‘to move in’). Other adjectives expressing relatively permanent properties or an i n c l i n a t i o n to the action denoted by the base verb, are formed with the suffix -vý and its variants (toulavý ‘wandering’ ← toulat se ‘to wander’, mlčenlivý ‘silent, discreet’ ← mlčet ‘to be quiet, keep silent’). Deverbal adjectives with a p u r p o s i v e meaning are derived by the suffixes -cí, -ací, -icí (prací ‘washing’ ← prát ‘to wash’, cf. prací stroj ‘washing machine’, stojací ‘standing’ ← stát ‘to stand’, cf. stojací lampa ‘floor lamp’, žehlicí ‘ironing’ ← žehlit ‘to iron’, cf. žehlicí prkno ‘ironing board’). P a s s i v e meaning is expressed by adjectives with the suffixes -ný, -tý (zpomalený ‘slowed down’ ← zpomalit ‘to slow down’, smažený ‘fried’ ← smažit ‘to fry’, zapomenutý ‘forgotten’ ← zapomenout ‘to forget’). Adjectives designating the potential affectedness by an action are chiefly formed with the productive suffix -telný/-itelný (kontrolovatelný ‘controllable’ ← kontrolovat ‘to control’, viditelný ‘visible’ ← vidět ‘to see’), and the unproductive suffix -ný (pitný ‘drinkable’ ← pít ‘to drink’).

4.2.4. Deadverbial adjectives These adjectives are mainly derived from temporal and local adverbs by means of the suffixes -ejší/-ější, -ní, -ný (zítřejší ‘tomorrow’s’ (adj.) ← zítra ‘tomorow’, pozdější ‘later’ (adj.) ← pozdě ‘late’, dolní ‘lower’ ← dole ‘down’, zpětný ‘backward’ ← zpět ‘back’).

2886

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.3. Verbal derivation Verbs can be derived from different semantic classes of nouns, adjectives and verbs, which results in a broad variety of their semantics. Prefixation is much developed among deverbal verbs, with both “true” prefixes (roz-, vy-, vz-), and prefixes going back mostly to local and temporal prepositions (do-, na-, o-, po-, pod-, pro-, před-, při-, u-, v-, z-, za-). The predominant suffixes are -ova-t and -i-t; the first one is used as exclusive when foreign stems and verbs are adapted (bilancovat ‘to make up the balance, look back’, interpretovat ‘to interpret’). A combined formation type is represented by the attachment of a prefix and a reflexive morpheme; perfective verbs formed in this way mostly have a “quantitative” (saturative) meaning (běhat ‘to run’ → naběhat se ‘to run until exhaustion’, číst ‘to read’ → začíst se ‘to delve into reading’). Verbal suffixes differ from other word-formation affixes in that they relate the verb to its conjugational paradigm. It would therefore be more precise to speak of the derivation of verbs by means of stem-forming suffixes and in a few cases to distinguish them from real word-formation suffixes that stand before them. For the sake of simplicity we list them in all cases as suffix.

4.3.1. Denominal and deadjectival verbs Denominal verbs express, among others, the following meanings: a) ‘to be N’ (derived from personal nouns with the suffixes -it and -ovat), e.g., vítězit ‘to win’ (← vítěz ‘winner’), hostovat ‘to host’ (← host ‘guest’); b) ‘to have N/produce N’ (-it, -ě/et, -at, -ovat), e.g., toužit ‘to long for’ (← touha ‘desire, longing’), vonět ‘to scent, smell’ (← vůně ‘scent, flavour’), hlasovat ‘to vote’ (← hlas ‘vote, ballot’), mapovat ‘to map’ (← mapa ‘map’); c) ‘to act with N’ (-ovat, -it), e.g., veslovat ‘to paddle’ (← veslo ‘paddle’), bruslit ‘to skate’ (← brusle ‘skates’). Deadjectival verbs mostly express inchoative or factitive meaning: a) ‘to become A’ (-ě/et, -nout, -at), e.g., vápenatět ‘to calcify’ (← vápenatý ‘calcareous, limy, calcic’), chladnout ‘to get cold’ (← chladný ‘cold’), modrat ‘to become blue’ (← modrý ‘blue’); b) ‘to make A’ (-it), e.g., čistit ‘to clean’ (← čistý ‘clean’).

4.3.2. Deverbal verbs Prefixation is the main source of deverbal verbs. Prefixes are frequently polysemous and perform various functions: they change the lexical meaning (psát ‘to write’ → pode-psat ‘to sign; lit. under-write’), they render imperfective verbs perfective (dělat ipf. ‘to do, make’ → udělat pf.), they express different meanings of aktionsart, e.g., delimitative or cumulative meaning (jíst ‘to eat’ → pojíst ‘to eat a bit’, koupit ‘to buy’ → skoupit ‘to

158. Czech

2887

buy up’), they denote a phase (roze-stavět ‘to start building’, vy-studovat ‘to finish studying’), or the degree of the intensity of the action (e.g., prefix + postfix se: u-smát se ‘to give a smile’, za-tančit si ‘to have a dance’). The prefixes of adapted international verbs usually have some meanings similar to the Czech prefixes, cf. di(s)- (roz-, od-), e(x)- (vy-), pre- (před-), sub- (pod-), trans- (pře-): diskriminovat ‘to discriminate’ − rozlišovat ‘to distinguish’, emigrovat ‘to emigrate’ − vystěhovat ‘to move out’, exportovat ‘to export’ − vyvážet ‘id.’, predeterminovat ‘to predetermine’ − předurčit ‘to predestinate’, subordinovat ‘to subordinate’ − podřizovat ‘id.’, transformovat ‘to transform’ − převést ‘to transfer, convert’, etc. Verbal suffixes express the following meanings: A s p e c t : a) ipf. → pf., e.g., -nout (riskovat → risknout ‘to take a risk’); b) pf. → ipf., e.g., -v-at, -o-vat, -at (dodělat → dodělávat ‘to finish doing’, dodržet → dodržovat ‘to keep’, vyrůst → vyrůstat ‘to grow up’); I t e r a t i v i t y by means of -ě/et, -it, -at (sadit → sázet ‘to plant’, vézt → vozit ‘to carry’, chytit → chytat ‘to catch’) and -vat/-váv-at (čekat → čekávat ‘to wait’, říkat → říkávávat ‘to say’); D i m i n u t i o n with the suffixes -kat, -inkat, -itat (capat ‘to patter’ → capkat ‘to patter a bit’, spát ‘to sleep’ → spinkat ‘to nicely sleep’, cupat ‘to toddle’ → cupitat ‘to toddle a bit’). At the same time, these verbs express the speaker’s emotional attitude to the activity (or its agent).

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs are not very specific of Czech word-formation and poor in means. They are mainly derived by suffixation, deadverbial adverbs also by prefixation and combined prefixation and conversion. Denominal adverbs are derived on a limited scale, chiefly with the suffix -mo (e.g., koňmo ‘on horseback’ ← kůň ‘horse’). Deadjectival adverbs are formed by means of the highly productive suffixes -ě/-e and -y, less productive -o (špatně ‘badly’ ← špatný ‘bad’, dokonale ‘perfectly’ ← dokonalý ‘perfect’, romanticky ‘in a romantic way’ ← romantický ‘romantic’, široko ‘widely’ ← široký ‘wide’). Deverbal adverbs are rare, cf. some examples with the suffixes -mo and -ky (ležmo ‘when lying’ ← ležet ‘to lie’, mlčky ‘silently’ ← mlčet ‘to be silent’). Suffixal deadverbial adverbs express the degrees of comparison: the comparative of adverbs is formed with the suffixes -ě/eji, -e (krásně ‘beautifully’ → krásněji ‘more beautifully’, nízko ‘lowly’ → níže ‘more lowly’); the superlative is formed by prefixation of the comparative (nej-krásněji ‘most beautifully’). Deadverbial adverbs can also be derived by prefixation. The corresponding prefixes express temporal and local meaning (do-dnes ‘to this day; lit. until today’, na-dále ‘from now, furthermore; lit. on further’, od-jinud ‘from somewhere else’), quantitative and intensifying meanings (po-blíž ‘nearby’, pra-dávno ‘very long time ago’, pře-daleko ‘too far away’). Some adverbs are formed by a combination of prefixation and conversion (e.g., zítra ‘tomorrow’ → pozítří ‘the day after tomorrow’).

2888

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

5. Conversion Conversion is relatively rare in Czech. According to Dokulil et al. (1986: 487 ff.), it includes “in a broader sense”: 1. word-formation by mere transferral of a word from one part of speech to another (without any formal changes), and 2. word-formation whose only means is the change of the characteristic inflectional feature (ending).

5.1. Nominal conversion Conversion occurs chiefly with the nominalization of adjectives to personal nouns (pracující ‘working person’, raněný ‘injured person’, příbuzný ‘relative’), animals (škodná ‘vermin’, cf. škodit ‘to do harm’), and others, e.g., food and drinks (vepřová ‘pork’, šampaňské ‘champagne’), colours (zelená ‘green’), institutions (vysoká škola lit. ‘high school’ → vysoká ‘college, university’, hlavní silnice ‘main road’ → hlavní ‘id.’), or activities (taneční ‘dancing lessons’). Some of them can also be interpreted as results of ellipsis of the noun or as results of univerbation (see also article 42 on multi-word expressions and univerbation in Slavic). Conversion in the sense of a change of a characteristic explicitly expressed morphological feature mainly results in the formation of denominal collective nouns (smrk ‘spruce’ → smrč-í ‘spruce forest, spruces’, ostružina ‘blackberry’ → ostružin-í ‘blackberry bushes’) or deverbal abstract nouns, e.g., lovit ‘to catch’ → lov ‘catch (n.)’. This type of conversion can also be combined with other word-formation procedures, see section 3.1.1 on composition and section 4.1.1 on prefixation.

5.2. Adverbial conversion Adverbialization of simple or prepositional case forms of nouns gives rise especially to adverbs of place, time and manner (stranou ‘aside’, časem ‘eventually’, ráno ‘in the morning’, bezpochyby ‘without doubts’, dohromady ‘together’, nazpaměť ‘by heart’). Some (diachronically) short forms of neuter adjectives are adverbialized into modal or state-describing adverbs used as predicatives (i.e. impersonal non-verbal predicates) in the sentence (nutno ‘necessarily’ and as predicative ‘it is necessary (to)’, smutno ‘sadly’ and ‘it is sad (to)’, deštivo ‘rainily’ and ‘it is rainy’).

6. Minor processes of word-formation B a c k f o r m a t i o n (deprefixation, desuffixation) is entirely marginal in Czech; the great majority of backformed words is stylistically expressive or poetic (tes ← útes ‘cliff’), the only exception are formations like krása ‘beauty’ (← krás-n-ý ‘beautiful’). Simple desuffixation does not occur, there are only some cases of suffix deletion, i.e. truncation of the derivational stem to which an ending or another suffix is added, e.g., dareb-a

158. Czech

2889

‘rascal’ (← dareb-n-ý ‘rascally’) and boh-áč ‘rich-man’ (← boh-at-ý ‘rich’) (see also article 163 on Slovene, section 6). Simple r e d u p l i c a t i o n of the stem mostly serves to emphasize the meaning of the underlying word. This is a marginal method of word-formation, it gives rise above all to expressive adjectives and adverbs, e.g., jistojistý ‘certain’, pouhopouhý ‘pure’, svatosvatý ‘saint, sacrosanct’, dennodenně ‘daily’, užuž/jižjiž ‘in every minute’ (← už/již ‘already’), koneckonců ‘after-all; lit end-NOM.SG-end-GEN.PL’ (← konec ‘end’). Cases of b l e n d i n g in Czech are predominantly of foreign, at present chiefly of English origin. They are used extensively, above all in specialized slang, into which new anglicisms actively penetrate. Original Czech blends are very rare and mostly occur occasionally, cf. the proposals Morče (← Morava ‘Moravia’ and Čechy ‘Bohemia’) or Čechrava (← Čechy and Morava) as substitutional names for the Czech Republic (in the 1990s). They are all nouns (autobus ‘bus’, smog), the newer blends include, e.g., widely used internationalisms such as brunch, edutainment, infotainment, camcorder, fanzin (E. fanzine), workoholismus (E. workoholism), etc. C l i p p i n g as a means of linguistic economy has various formal types, the great majority of them being based on institutional or geographical names (single or established multi-word names), e.g., abbreviations, consisting of the initial letters of the underlying name (ČR ← Česká republika), or of initials and syllables (Čedok ← Československá dopravní kancelář, name of a travel agency, founded in 1920). The shortening of single-word names (frequently complemented by derivation and a change of the quantity of the base vowel) traditionally results in the formation of hypocoristics (Dáša ← Dagmar, Mirek ← Miroslav), and conversational or slang variants of appellatives (limo ← limonáda ‘lemonade’, nashle ← nashledanou ‘good-bye, bye’, děják ← dějepis ‘history’ (in pupils’ slang), foťák ← fotoaparát ‘camera’, komp/comp ← computer ‘computer’). Wo r d - c r e a t i o n , i.e. individual word-formation by means of sounds and syllables or morphemes of the given language is often marked by analogy (imitation), conveyed by the sound form or influenced by expressive word-formation models. It is quite rare in Czech and results mostly in occasionalisms. The anomalies rest in the unusualness of the combination of word-formation elements. Traditionally, word-creation is found in literary style (authors’ coinages, namely in modern fairy-tales or sci-fi works, including both common and proper names, e.g., Hurvínek − a legendary Czech puppet character; Jan Werich, 1960: fimfárum − a special magic wand; Jaromír John, 1948: Pampovánek − a character’s name; Kateřina Blažková, 2009: algabram − a magician’s instrument, klučenky, zeltky bélané, lendané − fictitious cosmic creatures), and more recently in some forms of medial and electronic communication, such as SMS, blogs, etc. (nicknames of participants of internet discussion forums: macpac, qwerty47, cio-ran-m). Special cases are represented by word-creation in translation, e.g., the transfer, imitation of occasionalisms and individualisms and word-plays from the original language (e.g., famfrpál as Czech equivalent to J. K. Rowling’s quidditch, a name of a fictional sport).

7. References Blahoslav, Jan 1551−71 Gramatika česká. [ms., sign. Rkp 114, reposited in the Státní vědecká knihovna v Brně] see: Čejka, Šlosar and Nechutová 1991.

2890

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Bozděchová, Ivana 1994 Tvoření slov skládáním. Praha: ISV. Bozděchová, Ivana 2009 Onomaziologie, slovotvorba a jazykový obraz světa. In: Petr O. Bech, Viktor M. Bricyn, Roksolana P. Zorivčak, Jevgenija A. Karpilovs’ka, Oleksandr D. Ponomariv, Andrij O. Savenko, Grygorij F. Semeniuk and Olena S. Snytko (eds.), Movy ta kuľtury u novij Jevropi: kontakty i samobutnisť. Zbirnyk dopovidej na Mižnarodnych naukovych čytannjach, prysvjačenych 70-riččju vid dnja narodžennja člena-korespondenta NAN Ukraïny, Niny Fedorivny Klymenko, 57−65. Kyïv: Vydavnyčyj Dim Dmytra Burago. Bozděchová, Ivana 2010a Internacionalizační tendence a typ češtiny. In: Elena V. Petruchina (ed.), Novye javlenija v slavjanskom slovoobrazovanii. Sistema i funkcionirovanie, 257−269. Moskva: Izdateľstvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Bozděchová, Ivana 2010b Kompozita v proměnách moderní české slovní zásoby odborné a neologické. In: Nina Klymenko and Ievgenija Karpilovs’ka (eds.), Vidobražennja istoriï ta kuľtury narodu v slovotvorenni, 35−46. Kyïv: Vydavnyčyj Dim Dmytra Burago. Bozděchova, Ivana 2013 Kompozice a její potenciál v současné slovní zásobě češtiny. Korpus − gramatika − axiologie 7: 3−21. Bozděchova, Ivana 2014 K současnému tvoření složených názvů osob v češtině. In: Swetlana Mengel (ed.), Slavische Wortbildung im Vergleich. Theoretische und pragmatische Aspekte, 506−526. Berlin: LIT-Verlag. Čechová, Marie (ed.) 1996 Čeština − řeč a jazyk. Praha: ISV. Čejka, Mirek, Dušan Šlosar and Jana Nechutová (eds.) 1991 Gramatika česká Jana Blahoslava. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Čermák, František 2010 Lexikon a sémantika. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Daneš, František, Miloš Dokulil and Jaroslav Kuchař 1967 Tvoření slov v čestině. Vol. 2: Odvozování podstatných jmen. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd. Dobrovský, Josef 1799 Die Bildsamkeit der slavischen Sprache, an der Bildung der Substantive und Adjective in der Böhmischen Sprache dargestellt. Prag: Herrl. Dobrovský, Josef 1802−21 Deutsch-böhmisches Wörterbuch. Prag: Herrl. Dobrovský, Josef 1819 [1809] Ausführliches Lehrgebäude der böhmischen Sprache zur gründlichen Erlernung derselben für Deutsche, zur vollkommenen Kenntnis für Böhmen. Prag: Herrl. Dokulil, Miloš 1962 Tvoření slov v češtině. Vol. 1. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd. Dokulil, Miloš, Karel Horálek, Jiřina Hůrková, Miloslava Knappová and Jan Petr 1986 Mluvnice češtiny. Vol. 1. Praha: Academia. Filipec, Josef and František Čermák 1985 Česká lexikologie. Praha: Academia. Gebauer, Jan 1901 Mluvnice česká pro školy střední a ústavy učitelské. Praha: Unie. Hauser, Přemysl 1980 Nauka o slovní zásobě. Praha: SPN.

158. Czech

2891

Havránek, Bohuslav and Alois Jedlička 1981 Česká mluvnice. Praha: SPN. Karlík, Petr, Marie Krčmová, Jana Pleskalová and Radoslav Večerka 2007 Kapitoly z dějin české jazykovědné bohemistiky. Praha: Academia. Karlík, Petr, Marek Nekula and Zdenka Rusínová (eds.) 2001 Příruční mluvnice češtiny. 3rd ed. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Komárek, Miroslav 1999 Martincová, O. a kol.: Nová slova v češtině. Slovník neologizmů. Slovo a slovesnost 60: 67−69. Lotko, Eduard 1999 Ke konfrontaci příbuzných jazyků (na materiálu češtiny a polštiny). Slavia 68: 75−82. Lotko, Eduard 2009 Srovnávací a bohemistické studie. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého. Martincová, Olga (ed.) 1998 Nová slova v češtině. Slovník neologizmů. Praha: Academia. Martincová, Olga and Nikolaj Savický 1987 Hybridní slova a některé obecné otázky neologie. Slovo a slovesnost 48: 124−139. Mathesius, Vilém 1947 Čeština a obecný jazykozpyt. Praha: Melantrich. Optát, Beneš, Petr Gzel and Václav Philomathes 1533 Gramatyka Cžeſka [Náměšťská mluvnice]. Náměšť: Kašpar Prostějovský. Pohl, Jan Václav 1756 Grammatica Linguae Bohemicae. Wien: Trattner. Rosa, Václav Jan 1672 Čechořečnost, seu Grammatica linguae Bohemicae. Micro-Pragae: Joannis Arnolti a Dobroslawina. Short, David 2002 Czech. In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 455−532. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Skalička, Vladimír 1951 Typ češtiny. Praha: Slovanské nakladatelství. Šmilauer, Vladimír 1971 Novočeské tvoření slov. Praha: SPN. Tomsa, Franz Johann [František Jan] 1791 Vollständiges Wörterbuch der böhmischen, deutschen und lateinischen Sprache. Prag: von Schönfeld-Meißner. Trávníček, František 1948 Mluvnice spisovné češtiny. Vol. 1. Praha: Melantrich. Vavřinec Benedikt z Nudožer 1603 Grammaticae Bohemicae, ad leges naturalis methodi conformatae, et notis numerisque illustratae ac distinctae, libri duo. Praha: Officina Mariana.

Ivana Bozděchová, Prague (Czech Republic)

2892

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

159. Slovak 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

Abstract This article gives an overview of Slovak word-formation. All parts of the word-formation system are discussed, including word-formation means, basic and specific word-formation processes and word-formation and onomasiological categories within individual word classes. The formal and semantic parameters of units are described and illustrated by examples.

1. Introduction Slovak belongs to the West Slavic languages. It is the mother tongue of 80 % of the approximately 5,5 million inhabitants of Slovakia, but is also spoken in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Ukraine. In 1993 the Slovak Republic became an independent state, in 1995 the Law on the State Language (Slovak) came into force, which includes among others articles on language culture and current tasks of linguistic research. Since 2004 Slovak is one of the official languages of the European Union. The history of research on Slovak word-formation traces back to the 17th and 18th century (cf. works dealing with the grammar of Czech and Slovak: Vavrinec Benedikt z Nedožier 1603; Doležal 1746). The first work with a special attention to Slovak wordformation is Etymologia vocum slavicarum (Bernolák 1791). Afterwards, during the 19 th century and in the first half of the 20th century, several works were published, e.g., Štúr (1846), Czambel (1919), Pravidlá slovenského pravopisu [Rules of Slovak Orthography] (Vážný 1931; Baník 1940; Peciar 1953), Letz (1943). In these publications, word-formation (together with morphology, syntax, and orthography) is treated primarily emphasizing practical standardization purposes. The beginnings of modern research into Slovak word-formation are closely connected with Ján Horecký: “What was written on [Slovak] word-formation before Horecký can only be treated as pre-scientific” (Furdík 2000: 331). His work Slovotvorná sústava slovenčiny [The Word-Formation System of Slovak] (1956) is based on the principle of “dynamic synchrony” − a term going back to the Prague School and Baudouin de Courte-

159. Slovak

2893

nay − and provides a relatively thorough analysis of nominal, adjectival and verbal wordformation. In his subsequent works, Horecký develops a wide range of word-formation topics, e.g., word-formation and morphemics (Horecký 1964), and word-formation and semantics (Horecký 1994, 2003). Another important representative of the structural approach to word-formation is Klára Buzássyová, whose monograph on the semantic structure of Slovak deverbatives (Buzássyová 1974) deals with the derivative capacity of Slovak verbs, which is determined by their semantics and valency. She is also considered to be the “mother” of nonce-formation research in Slovak (e.g., Buzássyová 1980, 1990). The principles of coining nonce-formations and their functioning in parole are also treated by Liptáková (2000). In the latter half of the 20th century crucial influence on Slovak word-formation research was exercised by Juraj Furdík, the author of three inspiring monographs (1971, 1993, 2004). Furdík tackles a number of issues related to word-formation as, for instance, the onomasiological structure of complex words, word-formation and analogy, the syntax of complex words, word-formation in its relation to other linguistic disciplines (e.g., general linguistics, phonology, morphology, stylistics, comparative linguistics), but also diatopic and diachronic aspects of word-formation. The work of Furdík is regarded as the most influential in the field of Slovak word-formation at the turn of the millennium. During this period, special attention was paid to word-formation of adjectives (Nábělková 1993), the dynamism of the contemporary Slovak lexicon, including word-formation (Horecký, Buzássyová and Bosák 1989), and the role of compounding (Buzássyová 2003; Sokolová, Ivanová and Vužňáková 2005). In addition, two specialized textbooks on word-formation were published (Furdík 2004; Liptáková and Vužňáková 2010). The interaction between word-formation and morphemics/morphophonemics is treated in the Slovník koreňových morfém slovenčiny [Dictionary of Slovak Root Morphemes] (Sokolová et al. 2012), which has both derivational and morphemic character. For the first time, it offers a systemic analysis of word-formation relations in “word-formation nests” (a metaphorical term used in Slavic word-formation in the meaning ‘word family’). It currently substitutes for the missing derivational dictionary of the Slovak language and is unique also in Slavic linguistics.

2. General overview Word-formation is understood as a central component of the lexicon. In this sense it fulfils four elementary functions (Furdík 1993): systematization (in relation to the lexicon as a whole), integration (with regard to coining new lexemes), condensation (concerning the relation between lexemes and collocations/utterances), and adaptation (in relation to foreign lexemes). Word-formation is a linguistic subsystem with its own hierarchical configuration: a) means of word-formation: bases and affixes (elementary units); b) word-formation processes: composition and derivation; c) word-formation and onomasiological categories; d) word-formation nests: sets of lexemes connected by word-formation relations. In this context, one remark concerning the demarcation of compounding and derivation is worth mentioning. Products of derivation are words with one base: farba ‘colour’

2894

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

+ suffix -n(ý) → fareb-ný ‘colourful’. Products of compounding are words with two or more bases: pestrá farba ‘various colour’ → pestr-o-fareb-ný ‘colourful’. Thus, a particular word-formation relation between lexemes is taken into account, not the number of root morphemes, which is why a lexeme like pestrofarebnosť is considered to be a product of derivation (not composition): pestrofarebný ‘colourful’ → pestrofarebn-osť ‘colourfulness’ (cf. múdry ‘wise’ → múdr-osť ‘wisdom’). The demarcation (and co-operation as well) of word-formation with other language components can be sketched as follows: a) Word-formation and inflection: Word-formation processes are connected with relations among lexemes, the result of such a process is a new word: dom ‘house’ → domček ‘small house’. Inflection is identified with the grammatical forms of a particular lexeme: dom ‘house’ (nominative/accusative singular) − domu (genitive/dative singular) − domy (nominative plural), etc. However, two types of “overlap” (or cooperation) between these phenomena can be mentioned: In special cases, word-formative suffixes function, for the sake of inflection, as socalled “inflectional suffixes”: adding a suffix makes an originally non-inflected word inflected without addition of any semantic component: taxi (non-inflected) ‘taxi’ → tax-ík (inflected) ‘id.’; A set of grammatical morphemes can be used for word-formative purposes. In Slovak linguistics, the formation of a new word by changing the inflection (morphological paradigm) is referred to as transflexion (cf. section 5.5). b) Word-formation and syntax: There are several analogies and links between wordformation and syntax. Firstly, the internal structure of complex words resembles syntactic structure (in terms of determination or coordination between the components of a word, on the one hand, and a syntagma, on the other hand; cf. juh a západ ‘South and West’ − juhozápad ‘southwest’). Secondly, compounds can be formed directly from syntagmas: a) with a morphemic change (malé mesto ‘a small town’ → malomesto ‘small town’); b) without any morphemic change (hodný ‘worth’ + trestu ‘penalty-GEN’ → trestuhodný ‘culpable’). Thirdly, the meaning of a complex word can be expressed in the form of a syntactic unit (syntagma, sentence): rybár ‘fisherman’ − the one who catches fish. c) Word-formation and morphonology: Derivational processes are often accompanied by vocalic and consonantal alternations; cf. í/i (víno ‘wine’ → vinár ‘vintner’), c/č (líce ‘cheek’ → líčko ‘little cheek’), e/ie + ch/š (strecha ‘roof’ → strieška ‘small roof’), ä/ia, ť/t (päť ‘five’ → piaty ‘fifth’). Finally, it should be mentioned that in Slovak a relatively high occurrence of foreign (international) word-formation bases, affixes and complex words gives evidence of the active participation in internationalization, e.g., psychológia ‘psychology’ → psychologický ‘psychological’, blog → bloger ‘blogger’; compounds with neoclassical components like agro-, bio-, eko-, electro-, euro-, gastro-, techno-, tele-, etc. (agrosektor ‘agrosector’, elektrofilter ‘electrofilter’, europarlament ‘European parliament’, teletechnológia ‘tele technology’). Domestic and foreign bases and affixes often combine with each other: prudérny ‘prudish’, kartička ‘small card’, biopalivo ‘biofuel’, retrokabát ‘retro coat’.

159. Slovak

2895

3. Composition 3.1. Introduction Compounding is a rather frequent word-formation process in Slovak. It can be defined as the merging of (at least) two stems or word-formation bases in order to form a new complex word referred to as compound. In Slovak, compounds are single conventionalized items that are listed as headwords in dictionaries. Slovak compounds represent dynamic phenomena: their frequency is increasing, the productivity of existing wordformation models is intensifying, and new word-formation models are being adopted from other languages, especially in the field of terminology (Horecký, Buzássyová and Bosák 1989: 229−241).

3.2. Word-formation procedures The following productive and rule-governed patterns are used to form different types of compounds: a) Juxtaposition: This procedure is typical for so-called syntagmatic compounds (compounds arising on the basis of existing syntagmas). The components are ordered differently from the corresponding syntactic phrases and merge without any connecting element. Juxtaposition is typical for adjectives (hodný pamäti lit. ‘worth memoryGEN’ → pamätihodný ‘memorable’), nouns (zrada vlasti lit. ‘treachery homelandGEN’ → vlastizrada ‘treason’) and verbs (rozhodovať spolu lit. ‘to decide together’ → spolurozhodovať ‘to decide together with sb.’). b) Genuine composition: In these compounds, the components are usually joined by means of linking elements (bodka ‘point’ + čiarka ‘comma’ → bodk-o-čiarka ‘semicolon’, bledý ‘pale’ + modrý ‘blue’ → bled-o-modrý ‘pale blue, light blue’). Pure composition is frequently accompanied by truncation, e.g., stredný ‘middle’ (adj.) + vek ‘age’ → stredovek ‘middle ages’ (Sokolová, Ivanová and Vužňáková 2005: 107− 108). c) Synthetic compounds: Within this type two word-formation procedures are combined – either composition and suffixation, or composition and transflexion. This procedure yields compounds in which all three onomasiological constituents (in the sense of M. Dokulil 1962) are linguistically expressed, i.e. the onomasiological base (affix; in the following example: -ič) and the determining and determined constituents of the onomasiological mark (the motivating units): bacil ‘germ’ + nosiť ‘to carry’ → bacilonos-ič ‘germ carrier’. In transflexion the determined constituent of the mark is expressed by a grammatical morpheme, which is the most important feature of this type of compounds (štrajk ‘strike’ + kaziť ‘to spoil’ → štrajkokaz ‘blackleg’, bosý ‘bare’ + noha ‘foot’ → bosonohý ‘bare-footed’). d) Quasi-composition: Quasi-compounds (Buzássyová 2003: 36) contain root-like suffixes and prefixes which are called affixoids (Sokolová 1999: 34−36). Affixoids (prefixoids and suffixoids) arise as a result of grammaticalization of domestic root morphemes (teplo ‘heat’ + merať ‘to measure’ → teplo-mer ‘thermometer’, kniha ‘book’

2896

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic + milovať ‘to love’ → kniho-mil ‘bibliophile’) or as a result of adopted serially occurring root elements (narko-man ‘drug addict’, psycho-lógia ‘psychology’, makroekonomika ‘macroeconomy’). Within this type, the combination of domestic and foreign elements typically results in hybrid formations, e.g., infra-žiarič ‘infra emitter’, meta-jazyk ‘metalanguage’.

3.3. Nominal compounds In analysing compounds, particular types of onomasiological categories are used. In accordance with Dokulil’s theoretical framework (Dokulil 1962) we speak of modification when the first word-formation base adds a modifying element to the second wordformation base of a compound, whereas mutation applies when compounding is combined with derivation.

3.3.1. Determinative compounds Slovak determinative nominal compounds can be either modificational or mutational. In the modificational type, the first component functions as onomasiological mark semantically modifying the onomasiological base that is expressed by the second component. The mark can be a noun (zem ‘earth’ + guľa ‘globe’ → zemeguľa ‘globe’), an adjective (čierny ‘black’ + zem ‘earth’ → černozem ‘blackearth’), a verb (this type being rather rare in Slovak: pršať ‘to rain’ + plášť ‘coat’ → pršiplášť ‘raincoat’), a pronoun (seba ‘oneself’ + kontrola ‘control’ → sebakontrola ‘self-control’), a numeral (pol ‘half’ + čas ‘time’ → polčas ‘half-time’), or a particle (compounds of this type denote expressive degradation of what is denoted by the second component: vraj ‘supposedly’ + socializmus ‘socialism’ → vrajsocializmus ‘quasi-socialism’). Mutational compounds arise as a result of a combination of word-formation procedures, namely composition and suffixation (“synthetic compounds”), or composition and transflexion (i.e. a word-formation procedure of forming new units by means of grammatical morphemes, see section 5.5). The onomasiological base is encoded into a suffix (composition + suffixation) or a grammatical morpheme (composition + transflexion), the onomasiological mark is expressed by the word-formation base. Mutational compounds fall into the following categories according to the grammatical category of the second word-formation base that can be expressed by a noun or a verb. Compounds with a nominal word-formation base can be classified into the following categories: – inhabitant nouns: južný ‘southern’ + Afrika ‘Africa’ → Juhoafričan ‘South African’; – personal nouns expressing an affiliation to a certain community; they are usually derived from multi-word expressions: vysoký ‘high’ + škola ‘school’ → vysokoškolák ‘university student’; – nouns denoting an animate or inanimate bearer of a property: párny ‘even, paired’ + kopyto ‘hoof’ → párnokopytník ‘biungulate animal’;

159. Slovak

2897

– agent nouns: triasť ‘to shake’ + riť ‘arse’ → trasorítka ‘chicken shit, coward; lit. shake-arse-AGENT’. (As -rít-k-a does not function as word outside the compound, trasorítka cannot be regarded as exocentric compound.) Compounds with a verbal word-formation base can be classified into the following categories: – – – – –

action nouns: uhoľ ‘coal’ + kresliť ‘to draw’ → uhľokresba ‘charcoal drawing’; agent nouns: chlieb ‘bread’ + darovať ‘to give’ → chlebodarca ‘provider’; result nouns: drevo ‘wood’ + ryť ‘to cut’ → drevoryt ‘woodcut’; instrument nouns: mucha ‘fly’ + lapať ‘to catch’ → mucholapka ‘flycatcher, flypaper’; place nouns: lieh ‘alcohol, spirit’ + variť ‘to boil’ → liehovar ‘distillery’.

3.3.2. Exocentric compounds Exocentric compounds can be interpreted as a kind of mutation compounds in which the onomasiological base is not formally expressed. Therefore the compound is not a hyponym of the second constituent but a hyponym of an unexpressed semantic head (trúbiť ‘to blow’ + roh ‘horn’ → trubiroh ‘hick’). Exocentric compounds often denote persons with certain characteristics, e.g., tĺcť ‘to beat’ + huba ‘mouth’ → tlčhuba ‘loudmouth’, valiť ‘to roll’ + buk ‘beech’ → valibuk ‘strongman, husky’. Horecký (1994: 44) refers to compounds like ostrý ‘sharp’ + chvost ‘tail’ → ostrochvost ‘sharp-tailed bird’ as to derived p o s s e s s i v e compounds since the whole complex ostrochvost functions as onomasiological mark. Possessive compounds are of Germanic type, i.e. within the onomasiological mark the determinant precedes the determinatum: ostro(determinant)chvost(determinatum), while agent-type compounds are of French type, i.e. within the onomasiological mark the determinant is followed by the determinatum: tlč(determinatum)-huba(determinant).

3.3.3. Copulative compounds The meaning of a copulative compound is given by the sum of the meanings of its motivating components. From an onomasiological perspective, copulative compounds correspond to an “integration category” (i.e. the onomasiological category of these compounds is established on a coordinative relation realized between two (or more) wordformation bases). Nominal copulative compounds refer to a (typically material) entity comprising two equal components: les ‘forest’ + park ‘park’ → lesopark ‘forest park’, rádio ‘radio’ + magnetofón ‘tape recorder’ → rádiomagnetofón ‘radiocassette’.

3.4. Adjectival compounds 3.4.1. Determinative compounds Determinative compounds can be either modificational or mutational. Modificational adjectival compounds predominantly indicate intensification or alteration of the quality expressed by the second component. They denote gradation or degra-

2898

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

dation/attenuation of a quality by means of the first adverbial component: svetlo ‘brightly’ + červený ‘red’ → svetločervený ‘bright-red’, tmavo ‘darkly’ + ružový ‘pink’ → tmavoružový ‘dark pink’; middle intensity of a quality by means of the first numeral component: pol ‘half’ + mŕtvy ‘dead’ → polomŕtvy ‘half-dead’; quantitative-circumstantial determination by means of the first adverbial/pronominal component: vždy ‘always’ + zelený ‘green’ → vždyzelený ‘evergreen’; specification of a quality based on comparison to a prototype entity: sneh ‘snow’ + biely ‘white’ → snehobiely ‘snow white’; specification of a quality by indicating an object by means of the first nominal component: plný ducha lit. ‘full spirit-GEN’ → duchaplný ‘quick-witted; lit. spirit-GEN-full’. Mutational adjectival compounds are formed by combination of two word-formation processes: composition and suffixation, or composition and transflexion. Mutational compounds are either derived from nominal syntagmas (slovný ‘word-REL.ADJ’ + druh ‘class’ → slovnodruhový ‘word class (adj.)’, jeden ‘one’ + smer ‘direction’ → jednosmerný ‘unidirectional’, svoj ‘one’s own’ + hlava ‘head’ → svojhlavý ‘pig-headed’), or from verbal syntagmas (víno ‘wine’ + rodiť ‘to produce’ → vínorodý ‘wine-producing’, prosto ‘simply’ + riecť ‘to tell’ → prostoreký ‘flippant’).

3.4.2. Copulative compounds Adjectival copulative compounds denote a quality on the basis of a combination of colours (čierny ‘black’ + biely ‘white’ → čierno-biely ‘black and white’), tastes (sladký ‘sweet’ + kyslý ‘sour’ → sladkokyslý ‘sweet and sour’), physiological properties (hluchý ‘deaf’ + nemý ‘mute’ → hluchonemý ‘deaf-mute’), or an equivalent affiliation of two entities (matematický ‘mathematical’ + fyzikálny ‘physical’ → matematicko-fyzikálny ‘mathematico-physical’).

3.5. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds are rather rare in Slovak. They represent either modification or mutation types. Modificational verbal compounds indicate a temporal or circumstantial modification: znovu ‘again’ + objaviť ‘to discover’ → znovuobjaviť ‘to rediscover’, spolu ‘together’ + existovať ‘to exist’ → spoluexistovať ‘to co-exist’. In the mutation type the first component expresses the object of the action: blaho ‘happiness’ + želať ‘to wish’ → blahoželať ‘to congratulate’.

3.6. Adverbial compounds Within adverbial compounds modification is based on circumstantial determination of the second adverbial component: včas ‘early’ + ráno ‘in the morning’ → včasráno ‘early in the morning’. Mutational adverbial compounds arise as a result of composition and suffixation and express the mode of an action: strmo ‘steeply’ + hlava ‘head’ → strmhlav ‘headfirst’.

159. Slovak

2899

4. Derivation Derivation is the most productive word-formation process in the Slovak language: 80 % of words resulting from word-formation processes are derivatives (Furdík 2004: 64). Elementary derivational processes can be either synthetic (suffixation, prefixation, transflexion), or analytic (in Slovak, e.g., reflexivization). Circumfixation is regarded as a combined derivational process (e.g., prefixation and suffixation: hlava ‘head’ → podhlavník ‘bolster; lit. under-head-SUFF’, prefixation and transflexion: breh ‘bank, shore’ → pobrežie ‘coast; lit. along-bank/shore-SUFF), or as combination of even three processes (e.g., prefixation, transflexion and reflexivization, e.g., skromný ‘modest’ → uskromniť sa ‘to restrain oneself’, or prefixation, suffixation and reflexivization, e.g., žiadať ‘to demand’ → dožadovať sa ‘to demand excessively’). Derivational affixes display a high degree of allomorphy (e.g., vy/vý in vy-meniť ‘to change’ → vý-mena ‘change’; ír/ir in klav-ír ‘piano’ → klav-ir-ista ‘pianist’). Individual affixes vary widely regarding their productivity in present-day Slovak. Word-formation synonymy is rather frequent (piť ‘to drink’ → pijan and pijak ‘drunkard’). The major source of synonymy is represented by pairs of domestic and foreign affixes which are frequently treated as rival pairs (cf. deverbal nominalizers -áci-a and -n-ie, or, for instance, the existence of synonymous pairs of lexemes denoting quality with the suffixes -osť and -ita: produktívny ‘productive’ → produktívnosť and produktivita ‘productivity’). The shift of morphemic borders (reanalysis) between the word-formation base and the originally shorter formant is the major source of word-formation variants, e.g., bavlnár ‘cotton producer’ → bavlnár-stvo ‘the job of cotton producer’ vs. bavlna ‘cotton’ → bavln-árstvo ‘cultivation of cotton’. Reanalysis leads to the formation of new affixes like, in this case, -árstvo (Sokolová 1999: 48−50). Some domestic affixes can be attached to foreign bases in order to make the word inflectable, without adding a new meaning, cf. taxi ‘taxi’ → tax-ík ‘id.’ (Furdík 2004: 42−43). A new word may be also produced by analogy, e.g., nadchod ‘footbridge, flyover’, which is clearly modelled on already existing lexemes: vychádzať ‘to go out’ → východ ‘exit’, prechádzať ‘to go through’ → priechod ‘passage’; a verb *nadchádzať ‘to go over’ is not attested (Furdík 2004: 151).

4.1. Nominal derivation 4.1.1. Denominal nouns Denominal nouns can be either modificational or mutational. Nominal prefixes all express modification, e.g., a) Local: izba ‘room’ → pred-izba ‘anteroom’, smer ‘direction’ → proti-smer ‘opposite direction’, pozícia ‘position’ → ante-pozícia ‘anteposition’; b) Temporal: kráľ ‘king’ → ex-kráľ ‘ex-king’, komunista ‘communist’ → post-komunista ‘postcommunist’, jazyk ‘language’ → pra-jazyk ‘protolanguage’;

2900

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

c) Hierarchic: biskup ‘bishop’ → arci-biskup ‘archbishop’; konzul ‘consul’ → vicekonzul ‘vice-consul’, dekan ‘dean’ → vice-dekan ‘subdean’, človek ‘man’ → nadčlovek ‘superman’; d) Intensity: práca ‘labour’ → nad-práca ‘surplus labour’, ľavica ‘the left’ → ultraľavica ‘the ultra left’, trieda ‘class’ → extra-trieda ‘top-class’; e) Negation: vojak ‘combatant’ → ne-vojak ‘non-combatant’, ilúzia ‘illusion’ → dezilúzia ‘disillusion’; with a derogative meaning: odborník ‘expert’ → kvázi-odborník ‘quasi-expert’, veda ‘science’ → pa-veda ‘pseudoscience’. Suffixation is characteristic for mutational derivatives of the following categories: In p e r s o n a l n o u n s , the motivating noun usually expresses an activity or an instrument used by the person to be denoted by the derived word. The most productive suffixes are: -ár (kajak ‘kayak’ → kajak-ár ‘kayak-paddler’), -ník (klenoty ‘jewels’ → klenot-ník ‘jeweler’). Borrowed suffixes are also typical, for example, -eut (terapia ‘therapy’ → terap-eut ‘therapist’), -ín (joga ‘yoga’ → jog-ín ‘yogi’), -ista (šach ‘chess’ → šach-ista ‘chess player’), -ant (trafika ‘tobacco shop’ → trafik-ant ‘tobacconist’). Another group is represented by nouns which denote a person according to his/her relation to an entity/group/community, e.g., spolok ‘association’ → spolk-ár ‘member of an association’, dvor ‘court’ → dvor-an ‘courtier’, mafia ‘mafia’ → mafi-án ‘mafioso’, šľachta ‘nobility’ → šľacht-ic ‘nobleman’, kapela ‘band’ → kapel-ník ‘bandmaster’. They can be formed from the proper name of an individual, in which case they denote a follower of this person: Darwin → darvin-ista ‘darwinist’, Bernolák → bernolák-ovec ‘follower of Bernolák (1762–1813; writer, linguist and first codificator of Slovak)’. Names of inhabitants are formed from toponyms, e.g., Košice → Košič-an, Rakúsko ‘Austria’ → Rakúš-an ‘Austrian citizen’, Bratislava → Bratislav-čan, or from names denoting geographical localities: vrch ‘hill’ → vrch-ár ‘highlander’, juh ‘south’ → juž-an ‘southerner’. N o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s frequently denote different kinds of artefacts and other objects according to the material they are made of/consist of, etc., e.g., guma ‘gum’ → gum-ák ‘gum boot’, sneh ‘snow’ → sneh-uliak ‘snowman’, krava ‘cow’ → krav-inec ‘cowpat’, baran ‘lamb’ → baran-ica ‘lambskin cap’, tvaroh ‘cheese’ → tvarož-ník ‘cheesecake’; cf. also products of foreign word-formation such as citrón ‘lemon’ → citron-áda ‘lemonade’, ópium ‘opium’ → opi-át ‘opiate’; terms of chemical substances: jód ‘iodine’ → jod-id ‘iodide’. Another group comprises nouns denoting objects with certain functions, e.g., vietor ‘wind’ → vetr-ovka ‘anorak’, the suffix -ak/-iak is less productive (ovca ‘sheep’ → ovč-iak ‘Alsatian’). Some of them, denotations of containers, bins, and others, show an overlap between purposive meaning and the meaning of place nouns, e.g., kvet ‘flower’ → kvet-ináč ‘flowerpot’, smeti ‘rubbish’ → smet-iak ‘rubbish bin’, obed ‘dinner’ → obed-ár ‘dinner bucket’, korenie ‘pepper’ → koren-ička ‘pepperbox’, blato ‘mud’ → blat-ník ‘mudguard’, prst ‘finger’ → prst-eň ‘ring’. P l a c e n o u n s : The set of suffixes within this group is identical with deverbal place nouns, e.g., káva ‘coffee’ → kav-iareň ‘café’, loď ‘ship’ → lod-enica ‘shipyard’, kura ‘hen’ → kur-ín or kur-ník ‘henhouse’, oheň ‘fire’ → ohn-isko ‘fireplace’, semeno ‘seed’ → semen-ište ‘seedbed’, čaj ‘tea’ → čaj-ovňa ‘teahouse’, bažant ‘pheasant’ → bažantnica ‘pheasantry’. Nouns expressing s i m i l a r i t y are motivated by base nouns denoting a substance/ material, e.g., ihla ‘needle’ → ihl-an ‘pyramid’, kotol ‘cauldron’ → kotl-ina ‘basin’, had

159. Slovak

2901

‘snake’ → had-ica ‘hosepipe’, vlna ‘wave’ → vln-ovka ‘wavy line’, mech ‘sack’ → mech-úr ‘bladder’. Denominal a b s t r a c t n o u n s (e.g., priateľ ‘friend’ → priateľ-stvo ‘friendship’) are rare because abstract nouns are primarily derived from adjectives and verbs (cf. sections 4.2 and 4.3). Mutational nouns of different semantic groups can also be formed by combination of prefixation and suffixation or transflexion, expressing, e.g., local relations: po- ‘on, along’ (brucho ‘belly’ → po-bruš-nica ‘bellyband’), pod- ‘under-’ (brada ‘chin’ → podbrad-ník ‘bib’, voz ‘carriage’ → pod-voz-ok ‘undercarriage’) (prefixation and suffixation); mesto ‘town, city’ → ná-mest-ie ‘square’ (prefixation and transflexion), or temporal relations: deň ‘day’ → po-den-ka ‘mayfly’ (prefixation and suffixation), rok ‘year’ → vý-roč-ie ‘anniversary’ (prefixation and transflexion). Modificational denominal words fall into the following categories: C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s are formed by means of suffixation or transflexion, e.g., červ ‘worm’ → červ-ač ‘worm bed’, malina ‘raspberry’ → malin-čie ‘raspberry thicket’, breza ‘birch’ → brez-ina ‘birch grove’, ker ‘shrub’ → kr-ovie ‘shrubbery’, admiral ‘admiral’ → admiral-ita ‘corps of admirals’, ľudia ‘humans’ → ľud-stvo ‘humankind’. Transflexion is less productive within this category (tŕň ‘thorn’ → tŕn-ie ‘thornbush’), whereas the combination of prefixation and transflexion is typical, e.g., mesto ‘city’ → sú-mest-ie ‘conurbation’. This type is used for naming a closely bound complex of entities. S i n g u l a t i v e s are rare, e.g., mak ‘poppy’ → máč-ik ‘poppy seed’, slama ‘straw’ → slam-ka ‘a straw’, hrach ‘pea(s)’ → hráš-ok ‘pea’. D i m i n u t i v e s are productively derived with the following suffixes, e.g., drevo ‘wood’ → driev-ko ‘little piece of wood’, mama ‘mother’ → mam-ka ‘mamma’, čert ‘devil’ → čert-ík ‘little devil’, budík ‘alarm clock’ → budíč-ek ‘small alarm clock’, dieťa ‘child’ → dieť-atko ‘baby’, teta ‘aunt’ → tet-uška ‘auntie’. They exhibit a semantic feature of smallness connected with a speaker’s positive attitude. Diminutives show a semantic/pragmatic plasticity, and thus can be used for irony or sarcasm (byrokrat ‘bureaucrat’ → byrokrat-ík ‘petit bureaucrat’). Within the system of diminutives, numerous synonyms arise from different infix morphemes (residual derivational morphemes extending the derivational core morphemes) attached to the basic derivational suffixes (mam-ka → mam-ička, mam-inka, mam-ulienka, mam-uška, mam-ičenka ‘mam, mommy’). A u g m e n t a t i v e s denote largeness typically connected with a speaker’s negative (pejorative) attitude, e.g., pes ‘dog’ → ps-isko ‘fierce dog’, baba ‘old woman’ → babizňa ‘beldam, hag’, deva ‘maiden’ → dev-ucha ‘whore’, vrah ‘murderer’ → vrah-úň ‘nasty murderer’. They can also denote a certain affection or esteem, e.g., chlap ‘man’ → chlap-ina ‘stout man’. F e m a l e p e r s o n a l and a n i m a l n o u n s derived from masculine nouns represent a rather frequent category, e.g., adept ‘adept m.’ → adept-ka ‘adept f.’, pediater ‘paediatrist m.’ → pediatr-ička ‘paediatrist f.’, bežec ‘runner m.’ → bežk-yňa ‘runner f.’, švagor ‘brother-in-law’ → švagr-iná ‘sister-in-law’, predseda ‘chairman’ → predsed-níčka ‘chair woman’; vlk ‘wolf’ → vlč-ica ‘she-wolf’. Suffix substitution is also quite frequent, e.g., babr-ák ‘bungler m.’ → babr-aňa ‘bungler f.’; krásav-ec ‘handsome man’ → krásav-ica ‘pretty woman, cutie’. Transflexion is typical for nouns of adjectival origin: hostinský ‘innkeeper m.’ → hostinská ‘inn-

2902

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

keeper f.’, cf. also female surnames formed by means of the (adjective) suffix -ová: Novák ‘Mr Novák’ → Nováková ‘Mrs Novák’. A small group of nouns denoting m a l e p e r s o n s or a n i m a l s are derived from female personal and animal nouns, e.g., vdova ‘widow’ → vdov-ec ‘widower’, ježibaba ‘witch f.’ → ježibáb-eľ ‘witch m.’, komorná ‘lady’s-maid’ → komorn-ík ‘butler’, striga ‘witch f.’ → strig-ôň ‘witch m.’; koza ‘she-goat’ → koz-ol ‘he-goat’, žaba ‘female frog’ → žab-iak ‘male frog’. Nouns denoting y o u n g a n i m a l s are of neuter gender, e.g., jeleň ‘stag’ → jelenča ‘fawn’, pes ‘dog’ → ps-íča ‘doggie’, koza ‘goat’ → koz-ľa ‘kid’. Transflexion is also characteristic for this group, e.g., vták ‘bird’ → vtáč-a ‘young bird’, holub ‘dove’ → holúb-ä ‘young dove’. Personal nouns are less frequent: chlap ‘man’ → chlap-ec ‘boy’, cigán ‘gipsy’ → cigán-ča ‘gipsy baby’.

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Slovak deadjectival nouns can be either transpositional or mutational. Transpositional deadjectival nouns express a b s t r a c t q u a l i t i e s and are derived from gradable adjectives, e.g., múdry ‘wise’ → múdr-osť ‘wisdom’, biely ‘white’ → biel-oba ‘whiteness’, dlhý ‘long’ → dĺž-ka ‘length’, čierny ‘black’ → čierň-ava ‘blackness’, besný ‘furious’ → besn-ota ‘furiousness’, variabilný ‘variable’ → variabil-ita ‘variability’. Mutational deadjectival nouns fall into two distinct categories. P e r s o n a l n o u n s which denote bearers of qualities, either physical (nahý ‘naked’ → nah-áč ‘nude’, slepý ‘blind’ → slep-ec ‘blind person’, dlhý ‘long’ → dlh-áň ‘beanpole’), or mental (hlúpy ‘foolish’ → hlup-ák ‘fool’, slabý ‘weak’ → slab-och ‘weakling’). I n a n i m a t e b e a r e r s o f q u a l i t i e s are denoted according to an inherent quality (plytký ‘shallow’ → plytč-ina ‘sandbank’), material (drevený ‘wood’ → dreven-ica ‘woodhouse’, drôtený ‘steel’ → drôten-ka ‘steel wool’), origin (makový ‘poppy’ → makov-ník ‘poppy cake’), shape (oblý ‘rounded’ → obl-ička ‘kidney’), colour (biely ‘white’ → beľ-mo ‘sclera’). Many derivatives of this type can be explained as the result of univerbation (ellipsis + suffixation), e.g., slovenský jazyk ‘Slovak language’ → slovenčina ‘id.’, sanitné vozidlo ‘medical car’ → sanit-ka ‘ambulance’.

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns Slovak deverbal nouns are transpositional or mutational. Transposition is characteristic of a c t i o n n o u n s , cf. predať ‘to sell’ → pred-aj ‘sell’, čítať ‘to read’ → číta-nie ‘reading’, hádať sa ‘to quarell’ → hád-ka ‘quarelling’, stavať ‘to build’ → stav-ba ‘building’, žalovať ‘to sue’ → žal-oba ‘litigation’, trénovať ‘to train’ → trén-ing ‘training’, blokovať ‘to block’ → blok-áda ‘blockade’. Action nouns can also be the result of transflexion (bojovať ‘to fight’ → boj ‘fight’, hnať ‘to chase’ → hon ‘chase’, vymeniť ‘to substitute’ → výmena ‘substitution’).

159. Slovak

2903

In borrowed naming units, remotivation occurs: After the adaptation of, for instance, tréning ‘training’, a new verb was formed by means of a domestic affix: trénovať ‘to train’. On the basis of analogy to other deverbal abstract nouns, the verb begins to be regarded as motivating the abstract noun (trénovať → trén-ing) (Furdík 2004: 75). Mutational deverbal nouns form an extensive and differentiated field depending on the word-formation potency of individual verbs which, for its part, is determined by verbal valency (Buzássyová 1974). A g e n t n o u n s : the most productive suffixes are -teľ (učiť ‘to teach’ → uči-teľ ‘teacher’), -ca (súdiť ‘to judge’ → sud-ca ‘judge’), -ec (bežať ‘to run’ → bež-ec ‘runner’), -č (nosiť ‘to carry’ → nos-ič ‘carrier’), -ak (zabíjať ‘to kill’ → zabij-ak ‘killer’), -ar/ár (piecť ‘to bake’ → pek-ár ‘baker’). Expressively motivated units are formed by means of the suffixes -úň (ťahať ‘to plod’ → ťah-úň ‘plodder’), and -oš (bifľovať sa ‘to swot up’ → bifľ-oš ‘swot’). I n a n i m a t e n o u n s , derived with the same suffixes, are typical in terminology, e.g., deliť ‘to divide’ → deli-teľ ‘divisor’, stáť ‘to stand’ → stav-ec ‘vertebra’, ležať ‘to lie’ → lež-iak ‘lager’. O b j e c t n o u n s : The most productive suffixes of this category are -ka (rozprávať ‘to tell’ → rozpráv-ka ‘fairy tale’), -ica (žrať ‘to pig oneself’ → žran-ica ‘grub’), -ák (rolovať ‘to roll’ → rol-ák ‘polo neck’), -át (diktovať ‘to dictate’ → dik-tát ‘dictation’). R e s u l t n o u n s : odrezať ‘to cut’ → odrez-ok ‘cutting’, páliť ‘to burn’ → pál-enka ‘spirit, brandy’, pliesť ‘to twist’ → plet-enec ‘cluster’, ryť ‘to cut’ → ry-tina ‘engraving’, piecť ‘to bake’ → peč-ivo ‘pastry’. Borrowed suffixes are used too, e.g., rolovať ‘to roll’ → rol-áda ‘roulade’, kondenzovať ‘to condense’ → kondenz-át ‘condensate’. I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : The most productive suffix is -dlo (ryť ‘to cut’ → ry-dlo ‘stylus’, lepiť ‘to glue’ → lepi-dlo ‘glue’). Productive suffixes also include -áč (kutať ‘to poke’ → kut-áč ‘poker’), -ák (bodať ‘to stab’ → bod-ák ‘bayonet’), -č (krájať ‘to slice’ → krája-č ‘slicer’), -ec (bodať ‘to stab’ → bod-ec ‘spike’), -ka (zapáliť ‘to ignite’ → zápalka ‘match’), and -vo (liečiť ‘to heal’ → lieči-vo ‘medicine’). Borrowed suffixes are also rather frequent, e.g., ventilovať ‘to ventilate’ → ventil-átor ‘ventilator’, reprodukovať ‘to reproduce’ → reproduk-tor ‘speaker’. P l a c e n o u n s : The most productive suffixes are -áreň (opraviť ‘to repair’ → opraváreň ‘repair shop’), -sko (sídliť ‘to settle’ → sídli-sko ‘settlement’), and -ňa (pracovať ‘to work’ → pracov-ňa ‘study room’). The suffixes -nica (strieľať ‘to shoot’ → strelnica ‘shooting range’), and -stvo (gazdovať ‘to farm’ → gazdov-stvo ‘farmhouse’) are less productive. The suffix -šte (nastúpiť ‘to get on’ → nástupi-šte ‘platform’) is also unproductive, it is gradually substituted by the suffix -sko (nástupi-sko ‘id.’).

4.2. Adjectival derivation Derived adjectives typically show a high degree of ambiguity and multiple motivation (Nábělková 1993: 104−173), cf. kakaová zmrzlina ‘cocoa ice cream’ (origin), kakaový bôb ‘cocoa bean’ (affiliation), or kakaová farba ‘cocoa colour’ (similarity).

2904

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives Denominal adjectives can be classified into two groups. Relational adjectives express a relation referring to: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m)

Subject: sopka ‘volcano’ → sopeč-ný (výbuch) ‘volcanic (explosion)’; Object: veta ‘sentence’ → vet-ný (rozbor) ‘sentence (analysis)’; Activity: prístup ‘access’ → prístup-ová (cesta) ‘access (road)’; Possession, being part of: dom ‘house’ → dom-ový (dvere) ‘house (door)’; Content: obrázok ‘picture’ → obrázk-ový (slovník) ‘pictorial (dictionary)’; Affiliation: občan ‘citizen’ → občian-sky (zákon) ‘civil (code/law)’; Identity: gaštan ‘chesnut’ → gaštan-ový (strom) ‘chesnut (tree)’; Purpose: stôl ‘table’ → stol-ová (lampa) ‘table (lamp)’; Origin: kapusta ‘cabbage’ → kapust-ová (polievka) ‘cabbage (soup)’; Time: zima ‘winter’ → zim-né (počasie) ‘winter (weather)’; Space/place: močiar ‘marsh’ → močiar-ny (živočích) ‘marsh (animal)’; Measure: meter ‘metre’ → metr-ový (tovar) ‘metre (goods)’; Instrument: benzín ‘petrol’ → benzín-ový (motor) ‘petrol (motor)’, and others.

Relational-qualitative adjectives express properties based on s i m i l a r i t y with a characteristic quality of that which is denoted by the base: mater- ‘mother’ → mater-inská (opatera) ‘mother-like/motherly (care)’; ruža ‘rose’ → ruž-ová (farba) ‘rose (colour)’ and p o s s e s s i o n of what is denoted by the base: sval ‘muscle’ → sval-natý (človek) ‘muscular (man)’.

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Deadjectival adjectives are modificational and express different degrees of intensity, negation of a property, or a pretended quality. Expressive i n t e n s i f y i n g adjectives are formed by means of prefixation, the most widespread being the prefix pre-, e.g., krásny ‘nice’ → pre-krásny ‘splendid’. The prefix pra- is unproductive, e.g., starý ‘old’ → pra-starý ‘age-old’, or pôvodný ‘indigenous’ → pra-pôvodný ‘primordial’. N e g a t i v e adjectives are formed by means of the prefixes ne-, a-, an-, i-, in-, non-: správny ‘correct’ → ne-správny ‘incorrect’, logický ‘logical’ → a-logický ‘illogical’, legálny ‘legal’ → i-legálny ‘illegal’, solventný ‘solvent’ → in-solventný ‘insolvent’, konformný ‘conformist’ → non-konformný ‘non-conformist’. Adjectives designating a p r e t e n d e d q u a l i t y, are formed by means of the prefixes pseudo- and pa-: klasický ‘classic’ → pseudo-klasický ‘pseudoclassic’, vedecký ‘scientific’ → pa-vedecký ‘pseudoscientific’. Modificational adjectives with an a p p r o x i m a t i v e meaning are formed by means of suffixation, e.g., modrý ‘blue’ → modr-avý ‘bluish’, sladký ‘sweet’ → sladk-astý ‘sweetish’, žltý ‘yellow’ → žlt-kastý ‘yellowish’. Gradation and reduction of intensity expressed by word-formation means are typical for gradable adjectives. A combination of prefixation and suffixation can be found in examples like sprostý ‘stupid’ → na-sprost-astý ‘half-witted’, hluchý ‘deaf’ → na-hluch-lý ‘deafish’, starý ‘old’ → po-

159. Slovak

2905

star-ší ‘elderly’. D i m i n u t i v e and a u g m e n t a t i v e adjectives are formed by means of diminutive suffixes, e.g., malý ‘small’ → mal-ičký ‘tiny, minute’, dobrý ‘good’ → dobr-učký ‘very good, yummy’, and augmentative suffixes, e.g., vysoký ‘high’ → vysok-ánsky ‘extremely high’, dlhý ‘long’ → dlž-izný ‘extremely long’.

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal adjectives can be either transpositional or mutational. Transpositional adjectives result from the process in which verbal passive or active participles become adjectives and can be interpreted either as the result of conversion, or of suffixation: zakukliť sa ‘to pupate’ → zakukl-ený ‘in pupa, cocooned’, obávať sa ‘to dread’ → obáv-aný ‘dreaded’; zničiť ‘to devastate’ → zničuj-úci ‘devastating’, bežať ‘run’ → bež-iaci ‘running’ (cf. section 5.2.2). Mutational deverbal adjectives fall into the category of qualitative and relational adjectives and denote a) potentiality: zraniť ‘to hurt’ → zrani-teľný (človek) ‘vulnerable (man)’; b) purpose: spať ‘to sleep’ → spa-cí (vak) ‘sleeping (bag)’; c) activity/process: bolieť ‘to ache’ → boľavé (koleno) ‘aching (knee)’; d) result: dospieť ‘to grow up’ → dospe-lý (človek) ‘grown-up (man)’.

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Denominal verbs Denominal verbs are mutational and denote an action or a state related to the base noun (N), with the following meanings: a) ‘to be/behave as N’: These (often occasional) verbs denote either an action or a state, e.g., riaditeľ ‘headmaster’ → riaditeľ-ovať ‘to work as headmaster during a certain period, be headmaster’, šofér ‘chauffeur’ → šofér-ovať ‘to work as chauffeur during a certain period, be chauffeur’; b) ‘to have N’: The base noun can refer to the object of an action, e.g., hlad ‘hunger’ → hlad-ovať ‘to suffer from hunger’; c) ‘to provide with, give N’: hnoj ‘manure’ → hnoj-iť ‘to manure’, facka ‘slap’ → fackovať ‘to slap’; d) ‘to remove N’: blana ‘membrane’ → od-blan-iť ‘to remove a membrane’; e) ‘to act with N’: The base nouns denote an instrument used during an action; the verbs are derived by means of suffixation and reflexivization: guma ‘eraser’ → gum-ovať ‘to erase’, bubon ‘drum’ → bubn-ovať ‘to drum’, lyže ‘ski’ → lyž-ovať sa ‘to ski’; f) ‘to put into N, be in N’: The base nouns denote a location: garáž ‘garage’ → garážovať ‘to garage’, stan ‘tent’ → stan-ovať ‘to live under canvas, camp’; g) ‘to produce N, turn sth. into N’: model ‘model’ → model-ovať ‘to model’, popol ‘ash’ → s-popol-niť ‘to cremate’.

2906

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Deadjectival verbs are mutational and denote an action or a state based on its relation to a property. The verbs can be divided into the following categories: a) ‘to make A’: They are formed by means of prefixation, suffixation and transflexion: biely ‘white’ → o-biel-iť ‘to whitewash’, svetlý ‘bright’ → pre-svetl-iť ‘to brighten sth.’, ľudský ‘human’ → po-ľudšt-iť ‘to humanize’; b) ‘to become A’: slabý ‘weak’ → slab-núť ‘to weaken’, bledý ‘pale’ → bled-núť ‘to turn pale’.

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs Deverbal verbs are modificational (the meaning of modification is mostly expressed by prefixes). They are related to the category of aspect and aktionsart, diminutiveness, causativity and anti-causitivity (formally identical with reflexivization). Modificational verbs connected with the category of aktionsart can be either perfective, or imperfective. Modificational perfective verbs express the following meanings: a) Local: dvihnúť ‘to take’ → nad-dvihnúť ‘to take up’, baliť ‘to wrap’ → o-baliť ‘to wrap up’, hnať ‘to chase’ → obo-hnať ‘to chase around’, niesť ‘to carry’ → od-niesť ‘to carry away’, písať ‘to write’ → po-písať ‘to write over’; b) Temporal: hriať ‘to heat’ → pred-hriať ‘to preheat’, bolieť ‘to hurt’ → pre-bolieť ‘to stop hurting’, tancovať ‘to dance’ → do-tancovať ‘to stop, finish dancing’; c) Modal: jazdiť ‘to drive’ → o-jazdiť ‘to wear down, wear off’, piecť ‘to roast’ → prepiecť ‘to roast thoroughly’, cicať ‘to suckle’ → na-cicať sa ‘to suckle sufficiently, suck up’, krčiť ‘to crumple’ → do-krčiť ‘to crumple all over’. Modificational imperfective verbs can be a) Frequentative: They are formed by means of the suffix -áv/-av: čítať ‘to read’ → čitávať ‘to read usually, frequently during a period’, dýchať ‘to breathe’ → dých-avať ‘to breathe usually, frequently during a period’; b) Iterative: They are formed by means of transflexion: niesť ‘to carry’ → nosiť ‘to carry repeatedly’, viezť ‘to deliver’ → voziť ‘to deliver repeatedly’. Modificational d i m i n u t i v e verbs − mostly used in baby talk − represent expressive words formed by means of a suffix of the k-type (e.g., bežať ‘to run’ → bež-kať ‘to nicely run’), which can be expanded by an infix: spať ‘to sleep’ → sp-inkať ‘to nicely sleep’. Modificational c a u s a t i v e verbs are formed from intransitive verbs by means of prefixes and circumfixes: plakať ‘to cry’ → roz-plakať ‘to make cry’, sedieť ‘to sit’ → po-sad-iť ‘to seat sb.’. Modificational a n t i - c a u s i t i v e verbs represent intransitive state verbs formed from transitive action verbs by means of the derivational reflexive morpheme sa, e.g., zväčšiť ‘to greaten, enlarge’ → zväčšiť sa ‘to become great’.

159. Slovak

2907

4.3.4. Depronominal verbs and verbs derived from interjections Depronominal verbs and verbs derived from interjections fall into the onomasiological category of reproduction. This category reflects the possibility to express the sounds imitated by interjections within the conceptual category of action, i.e. by verbs, cf. Dokulil (1982). Most verbs are delocutive (expressing the meaning ‘to utter the pronoun/ interjection’), e.g., ty ‘you’ → ty-kať ‘to be on first name terms’, jaj ‘heigh-ho’ → jajkať ‘to groan’, mé ‘b-a-a-a-a’ → me-čať ‘to bleat’, Boha! ‘Hell!’ → boh-ovať ‘to swear’.

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs fall either into the transpositional or modificational onomasiological category. Transpositional adverbs denote a) Adverbialization of substance: denominal adverbs are formed by means of suffixation or prefixation, e.g., vrch ‘top’ → na-vrch ‘upwards’, časť ‘part’ → s-čast-i ‘partly’, kôň → koň-mo ‘on horseback’; b) Adverbialization of quality: the corresponding adverbs are formed from qualitative adjectives by means of suffixes and circumfixes: pekný → pekn-e ‘nicely’, dlhý → dlh-o ‘long’, bratský ‘brotherly (adj.)’ → bratsk-y ‘brotherly’, holý ‘bare, naked’ → (oholiť) do-hol-a ‘(to shave) bald’; c) Adverbialization of action is rather rare in Slovak. Deverbal adverbs are formed by means of suffixation: mlčať ‘to be silent’ → mlč-ky ‘silently’, lež-ať ‘to lie’ → lež-mo ‘lying, in a lying position’. Modificational adverbs denote a) Modification of circumstance: these deadverbial words are formed by prefixation and suffixation, e.g., dnes ‘today’ → od-dnes ‘as from today, hence’, včas ‘in time’ → za-včas ‘in time’, pešo → peš-ky ‘afoot, on foot’; b) Diminutiveness/endearment: the corresponding deadverbial lexemes are formed by suffixes of the k-type with infixes: sladko → slad-učko ‘sweetly’, trocha → troš-ička ‘a little’.

5. Conversion Results of conversion can only be nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and some synsemantic parts of speech. Conversion of non-verbal parts of speech to verbs is non-existent because the final part of Slovak verbs shows a specific morphemic configuration: derivative morpheme + thematic submorpheme + grammatical morpheme, e.g., star-n-ú-ť ‘to grow old’, prac-ov-a-ť ‘to work’.

2908

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

5.1. Nominal conversion Deadjectival conversion represents the most productive type and is based on the ellipsis of the nominal component of an adjective + noun syntagma (ženatý chlap ‘married man’ → ženatý ‘married (of a man)’), or a lexicalised collocation (materská dovolenka ‘maternity leave’ → materská ‘id.’). There are two types of deverbal conversion: a) Conversion of finite verb-forms is usually restricted to conversion into a proper name: vyletel (3rd person, past tense of vyletieť ‘to fly out’) → Vyletel (surname); b) Common nouns are converted from non-finite verb-forms − active participles (cestujúci ‘travelling’ → cestujúci ‘passenger’), and passive participles (obžalovaný ‘accused’ → obžalovaný ‘the accused’). Other types of conversion comprise depronominal conversion based on ellipsis (similar to the deadjectival type): môj manžel ‘my husband’ → môj ‘mine = my husband’. This type of conversion is accompanied by a pragmatic shift. Words like môj, moja ‘mine = my wife’, naši ‘ours = our parents’, vaši ‘yours = your parents’, etc. are informal.

5.2. Adjectival conversion Denominal conversion is rare and results from a change of syntactic function (head of a noun phrase > modifier): mrcha ‘bitch, jerk’ (noun) → mrcha človek ‘bad, annoying person’ (adjective + noun). Productive deverbal conversion is based on the transposition of non-finite verb-forms, active participles (vynikajúci − active participle, masculine, of the verb vynikať ‘to stand out’ → vynikajúci ‘amazing’) and passive participles (zarastený − passive participle, masculine, of zarásť ‘to overgrow’ → zarastený ‘hairy’).

5.3. Adverbial conversion Denominal conversion is relatively frequent. The adverbial function of a noun (or a noun form) can initiate denominal adverbial conversion: ráno (nominative singular) ‘morning’ → ráno ‘in the morning’, miestami (instrumental plural) ‘place’ → miestami ‘here and there’. Deverbal conversion is extremely rare and restricted to idiomatic conversion of transgressive (gerund) non-finite verb-forms: nechtiac (transgressive form of chcieť ‘to want’) → nechtiac ‘with no intention, unwillingly’, vstávajúc líhajúc (transgressive forms of vstávať ‘to get up’ and líhať ‘to lie down’) → vstávajúc-líhajúc ‘night and day’.

5.4. Conversion to synsemantic parts of speech Conversion of autosemantic to synsemantic words is a relatively common process. Within this category the following types of conversion occur most frequently: noun → prepo-

159. Slovak

2909

sition (v mene ‘in the name’ → v mene ‘on behalf of’), noun → particle (pravda ‘truth’ → pravda ‘however’), verb → particle (prosím ‘I beg, ask’ → prosím ‘please’), adverb → particle (skôr ‘sooner, before’ → skôr ‘rather, mainly, particularly’).

5.5. Conversion and transflexion In analytical languages (like English) conversion is defined as a process by which lexical items change the word class without any concomitant change in form. It has also been known in the literature as “zero-derivation” and “functional shift” (Lieber 2005: 418). In Slovak as an inflectional language conversion occurs when there is no change in morphological form: ranený (človek) ‘wounded (man)’ → (úbohý) ranený ‘the (poor) wounded’. Within the context of Slovak linguistics, the term transflexion is used for the process of the formation of a new word by changing the inflection (morphological paradigm), e.g., zmen-iť ‘to change’ → zmen-a ‘the change’. As opposed to conversion, in transflexion the change of the word-class is not inevitable: kameň ‘stone’ (noun) → kamen-ie ‘stones’ (collective noun). Transflexion is often accompanied by consonant and vowel alternations, e.g., nakaz-iť ‘to infect’ → nákaz-a ‘infection’; for more examples of transflexion in Slovak, cf. Štekauer, Valera and Körtvélyessy (2012: 222). Nevertheless, there is a common feature of conversion and transflexion: they represent non-affixal procedures of coining new units in language.

6. Backformation In Slovak, backformation (such as English pedlar → peddle) is understood as a process of transflexion (cf. section 5.5) with accompanying truncation: intelektuálny ‘intellectual’ (adj.) → intelektuál ‘(the) intellectual’ (noun). The (formally non-existing) affix is represented by a set of grammatical morphemes of a respective paradigm: nominative sg. intelektuál-0̸, genitive sg. intelektuál-a, dative sg. intelektuál-ovi, etc. Backformation is treated as a process synchronically reinterpreted (remotivated) on the basis of analogical word-formation (a similar standpoint is maintained by Kastovsky 1982). From this point of view, backformation has only a diachronic relevance (Zandvoort 1961). Synchronically, it is the same process as suffixation as in slepý ‘blind’ → slepec ‘blind man’. For an outline of treatments on backformation see Štekauer (1998).

7. Reduplication In the formation of coordinative compound adjectives, reduplication functions as an intensifier and makes lexemes more expressive: číročíry ‘pure’, dennodenný ‘daily’, svätosvätý ‘guaranteed; lit. sacrosanct’, šírošíry ‘very extensive’. On the other hand, reduplication occurs relatively frequently in the formation of interjections and onomatopoeic

2910

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

words (ha-ha, hi-hi, cha-cha, chi-chi ‘ha’, bu-bu-bu ‘fee-faw-fum’), including echo words (Plag 2002), e.g., hókus-pókus ‘hocus-pocus’, bim-bam ‘ding-dong’.

8. Blending In standard Slovak, blending is rare. Some blends have been borrowed from English (smog, motel, brunch), some others can be found in proper names (party + Bratislava → Partyslava). Nevertheless, blends are frequently coined as nonce-formations, some of them occurring in standard language (architekt ‘architect’ + chechtať sa ‘to giggle’ → archichecht ‘architect who giggles’, vlak ‘train’ + letuška ‘air hostess’ → vlakuška ‘train hostess’). For a comprehensive analysis of blending in Slovak in comparison with English, cf. Böhmerová (2010).

9. Clipping Clipping can be characterized as a type of reduction (or, abbreviation), active both in forming appellatives, e.g., reprezentácia ‘representation’ → repre, dovidenia ‘good-bye’ → dovi, internet → net, and proper names, e.g., Katarína (female first name) → Kata (hypocoristic form of Katarína), Konopelec (surname) → Kono (nickname). Initial abbreviation and acronymic coinages are more frequent: a) With no change of meaning: hrubý domáci produkt ‘gross domestic product’ → HDP, Železnice Slovenskej republiky ‘Slovak railways; name of a company’ → ŽSR; b) With a change of meaning (especially in coining chrematonyms): Bednár (surname) + dcéry ‘daughters’ → BERY (name of a company), Beňo (surname) + Sinčák (surname) → BESI (name of a company) − the latter could be also regarded as blends. Clipping can be accompanied by suffixation (especially in non-standard language): originálny (adj.) ‘original’ → origoš (adj.) ‘id.’.

10. Word-creation Word-creation as a naming process is extremely rare because of the absence of any motivation (creation ex nihilo − Bauer 1983). This process can be exemplified by proper names of fiction, e.g., Šalamaha (personal name), Rantaprapán (place name) in short stories by Václav Pankovčín, a contemporary Slovak writer. Special cases of wordcreation connected with an existing “base” (and thus being minimally motivated) can be illustrated by examples of inverted spelling: Miro (hypocoristic form of the first name Miroslav) → Orim (name of a company), Katina (surname) → Anitak (nickname).

11. References Baník, Anton Augustín 1940 Pravidlá slovenského pravopisu. Martin: Matica slovenská.

159. Slovak

2911

Bauer, Laurie 1983 English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bernolák, Anton 1791 Etymologia vocum slavicarum. Trnava: Jelinek. Bosák, Ján and Klára Buzássyová 1985 Východiská morfémovej analýzy. Morfematika. Slovotvorba. Bratislava: Veda. Böhmerová, Ada 2010 Blending as Lexical Amalgamation and its Onomatological and Lexicographical Status in English and in Slovak. Bratislava: ŠEVT. Buzássyová, Klára 1974 Sémantika slovenských deverbatív. Bratislava: Veda. Buzássyová, Klára 1980 Okazionalizmy v slovenskej literatúre. Studia Academica Slovaca 9: 91−108. Buzássyová, Klára 1990 Okazionálna slovotvorba ako indikátor synchrónnej a diachrónnej dynamiky. In: Ján Kačala (ed.), Metódy výskumu a opisu lexiky slovanských jazykov, 63−73. Bratislava: Jazykovedný ústav Ľudovíta Štúra SAV. Czambel, Samo 1919 Rukoväť spisovnej reči slovenskej. 3rd ed. Turčiansky Svätý Martin: Kníhtlačiarsky účastinársky spolok. Dokulil, Miloš 1962 Tvoření slov v češtině Vol. 1: Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV. Dokulil, Miloš 1982 Dva příspěvky k odvozování sloves. Naše řeč 65: 1−11. Doležal, Pavol 1746 Grammatica Slavico-Bohemica. Posonium: Typis Royerianis. Furdík, Juraj 1971 Zo slovotvorného vývoja slovenčiny. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo. Furdík, Juraj 1993 Slovotvorná motivácia a jej jazykové funkcie. Levoča: Modrý Peter. Furdík, Juraj 2000 O vývine názorov Jána Horeckého na slovotvorbu. In: Klára Buzássyová (ed.), Človek a jeho jazyk. Vol. 1: Jazyk ako fenomén kultúry, 331−338. Bratislava: Veda. Furdík, Juraj 2004 Slovenská slovotvorba. Teória, opis, cvičenia. Ed. by Martin Ološtiak. Prešov: Náuka. Horecký, Ján 1956 Slovotvorná sústava slovenčiny. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo SAV. Horecký, Ján 1964 Morfematická štruktúra slovenčiny. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo SAV. Horecký, Ján 1994 Semantics of Derived Words. Prešov: Filozofická fakulta v Prešove Univerzity P. J. Šafárika v Košiciach. Horecký, Ján 2003 Onomaziologická štruktúra slovenčiny. (= Spisy SJS 5. Ed. by Slavomír Ondrejovič.) Bratislava: Slovenská jazykovedná spoločnosť pri SAV − Jazykovedný ústav Ľ. Štúra SAV. Horecký, Ján, Klára Buzássyová and Ján Bosák (eds.) 1989 Dynamika slovnej zásoby súčasnej slovenčiny. Bratislava: Veda. Imrichová, Mária 2002 Logonymá v systéme slovenčiny. Prešov: FHPV PU. Kastovsky, Dieter 1982 Wortbildung und Semantik. Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel.

2912

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Krátka mluvnica slovenská [anonymous author] 1852 Prešporok: Schmid. Letz, Belo 1943 Kmeňoslovné úvahy. Turčiansky Svätý Martin: Matica slovenská. Lieber, Rochelle 2005 English word-formation processes: Observations, issues, and thoughts on future research. In: Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 375−427. Dordrecht: Springer. Liptáková, Ľudmila 2000 Okazionalizmy v hovorenej slovenčine. Prešov: Náuka. Liptáková, Ľudmila and Katarína Vužňáková 2010 Dieťa a slovotvorba. Prešov: PF PU. Nábělková, Mira 1993 Vzťahové adjektíva v slovenčine. Funkčná analýza desubstantívnych derivátov. Bratislava: Veda. Peciar, Štefan (ed.) 1953 Pravidlá slovenského pravopisu. Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied. Plag, Ingo 2003 Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pleskalová, Jana, Marie Krčmová, Radoslav Večerka and Peter Karlík (eds.) 2007 Kapitoly z dějin české jazykovědné bohemistiky. Praha: Academia. Sokolová, Miloslava, Martina Ivanová and Katarína Vužňáková 2005 Prínos Slovníka koreňových morfém slovenčiny k charakteristike kompozít. Jazykovedný časopis 55: 99−126. Sokolová, Miloslava, Gustáv Moško, František Šimon and Vladimír Benko 1999 Morfematický slovník slovenčiny. Prešov: Náuka. Sokolová, Miloslava, Martin Ološtiak, Martina Ivanová, František Šimon, Katarína Vužňáková, Beáta Czéreová and Vladimír Benko 2012 Slovník koreňových morfém slovenčiny. 3 rd ed. Prešov: Vydavateľstvo PU. Štekauer, Pavol 1998 An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol 2000 English Word-Formation. A History of Research (1960−1995). Tübingen: Narr. Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera and Lívia Körtvélyessi 2012 Word-Formation in the World’s Languages. A Typological Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Štúr, Ludevít 1846 Nauka reči slovenskej. Prešporok: Tatrín. Vavrinec Benedikt z Nedožier 1603 Grammaticae Bohemicae, ad leges naturalis methodi conformatae, et notis numerisque illustratae ac distinctae, libri duo. Praha: Officina Mariana. Vážný, Václav 1931 Pravidlá slovenského pravopisu. Praha: Státní nakladatelství. Zandvoort, Reinard W. 1961 Review of Hans Marchand, Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation (1960). English Studies 42: 120−124.

Martina Ivanová and Martin Ološtiak, Prešov (Slovakia)

160. Ukrainian

2913

160. Ukrainian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

Abstract The article describes resources, modes and models used for word-formation of different parts of speech in Modern Ukrainian. It presents the main concepts of Ukrainian wordformation theory, data on its history, basic scientific works, and word-formation dictionaries. Special attention is given to new tendencies in the development of Ukrainian word-formation, its active resources and models.

1. Introduction Ukrainian belongs to the East Slavic group of the Indo-European languages. It is the native language of 32,6 million people in the Ukraine, or 67.5 % of its population (according to the census of 2001), and about 45 million people speak Ukrainian worldwide (Jermolenko 1999: 239–269; Žovtobrûh and Moldovan 2005: 514−517; Rusanìvsʼkij 2007: 742−743). Ukrainian occupies the second (after Russian) or by other calculations the third (after Russian and Polish) place among the Slavic languages by quantity of native speakers. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state, and Ukrainian received the status of a state language with all functions particular to it. In 1996 this status was fixed in article 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Nowadays, in connection with the expansion of the spheres of its function, an intensive updating of the standards of literary Ukrainian in the fields of lexis and orthography, grammar and word-formation is taking place (cf. Jermolenko 1999: 201− 238; Struganecʼ 2002; Klimenko, Karpìlovsʼka and Kislûk 2008). Word-formation is one of the most active and productive naming strategies in Ukrainian. Its leading role in the enrichment and updating of vocabulary is conditioned by the typological features of Ukrainian as an inflectional language where synthesis prevails in denomination and predication (Vihovanecʼ 2007). First attempts to describe the wordformation of individual parts of speech date back to the beginning of the 19 th century (Pavlovskij 1818). Ukrainian grammars in the first half of the 20th century studied not only the current state of Ukrainian word-formation (Ìľ їn 1951), but also the history

2914

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

of its development (Smaľ-Stocʼkij 1929). Word-formation as an independent linguistic discipline within Ukrainian studies was established in the mid-1950s thanks to Ìvan Ì. Kovalik’s research (Kovalik 1958, 1961). The second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century is characterized by intensive studies on the system of Ukrainian word-formation. The outcomes of these studies are, e.g., a collective monograph “Word-Formation in the Modern Ukrainian Literary Language” (Žovtobrûh 1979) and the dictionaries “Morphemic Analysis” (Âcenko 1980–1981), “Morphemic Dictionary” (Polûga 1983), “Ukrainian-Russian Word-Formation Dictionary” (Sìkors’ka 1985), and “Terminological Dictionary of Ukrainian Word-Formation” (Vakarûk and Pancʼo 2007). Detailed information about word-formation may be found in the encyclopedia “Ukrainian Language” (Rusanìvsʼkij and Taranenko 2007). In 1991, the Potebnja Institute of Linguistics of the Ukraine National Academy of Sciences developed a computerbased Ukrainian morphemic word-formation corpus on the basis of the general word register (over 171,000 items). Since 2011 this data base is operated by the Ukrainian Language Institute of the National Academy of Sciences. It provides information and reference data and serves teaching and research purposes (Klimenko and Karpìlovsʼka 1994; Karpìlovsʼka 2006: 96−104). The data base facilitated the compilation of some new word-formation dictionaries of Ukrainian: “Dictionary of Ukrainian Affixal Morphemes” (Klimenko et al. 1998), “Root Dictionary of Ukrainian word families” (Karpìlovsʼka 2002) and “School Word-Formation Dictionary of Modern Ukrainian” (Klimenko, Karpìlovsʼka and Kislûk 2005); theoretical research has been carried out by Klimenko and Karpìlovsʼka (1991), Karpìlovsʼka (1992), Klimenko and Karpìlovsʼka (1998), and Karpìlovsʼka (1999).

2. General overview Conventional studies on Ukrainian word-formation distinguish morphological (interword) and semantic (intraword) word-formation. The latter results in homonyms, such as golova 1. ‘head’ and 2. ‘chairman’ (Bilecʼkij 1958: 152), or new meanings of already existing words: prozorij 1. ‘transparent’ and 2. ‘lawful’. Morphological derivation represented by various types of affixation (prefixation, suffixation, circumfixation, and postfixation, i.e. the addition of a derivational morpheme − a postfix − following the inflectional ending) plays a leading role in modern Ukrainian word-formation. This is proved by the data in the above-mentioned morphemic word-formation corpus, since over 76 % (i.e. over 130,000 words) of its general register are affixal derivatives. During the last few decades, the Ukrainian lexicon has been characterized by an increasing productivity of composition, blending and juxtaposition. This is facilitated by wide and intensive contacts of Ukrainian with other languages, primarily, English. Reduplication, backderivation, and word-creation are less developed. Typological features of Ukrainian wordformation are supported by active affixation of compounds as well as by replacement of borrowings with Ukrainian equivalents, e.g., klonmejker ‘clone maker’ and klonuvaľnik ‘clone producer’ (← klonuva-ti ‘to clone’), klonorob ‘producer of low-quality clones’ (← klon ‘clone’ + linking vowel -о- + rob, root of robiti ‘to make’). Neoclassical wordformation is also extensively present in modern Ukrainian. Latin and Greek stems are connected both with indigenous and borrowed stems, e.g., avtovìdpovìdač ‘answering

160. Ukrainian

2915

machine’ (← avto- ‘auto-’ + vìdpovìdač ‘respondent’), neobìľšovik ‘neobolshevik’, antivibori ‘anti-elections’, superbìj ‘supercombat’, kìnoman ‘cinema fan’, klìpofìl ‘clip-lover’. The neoclassical elements contribute to Ukrainian terminology although they are active in the colloquial language as well. This tendency is confirmed by groups of neologisms with such components as eko- (ekoruh ‘ecomovement’), bìo- (bìokrem ‘biocream’), psevdo- (psevdonauka ‘pseudoscience’), kvazì- (kvazìderžava ‘quasistate’), -manìâ (dìêtomanìâ ‘diet mania’), -fobìâ (rinkofobìâ ‘market phobia’), etc. (Klimenko, Karpìlovsʼka and Kislûk 2008: 134−190).

3. Composition The Ukrainian linguistic tradition used to consider composition as word-formation accomplished through the combination of roots or stems (i.e. word-formation bases containing not only the root but also derivational affixes) vs. juxtaposition understood as the combination of words (Klimenko 2007a: 274). Compounding is most active in the formation of nouns, adjectives and adverbs (Klimenko 1984: 82−231).

3.1. Determinative compounds Models for forming determinative compounds from subordinative combinations of words are the most productive ones.

3.1.1. Nominal compounds As examples may serve compounds of the type A+N: čorn-o-zem ‘chernozem’ (← čorn-a zemlâ ‘black soil’, root čorn- of čornij ‘black’ + linking vowel -о- + root zemof zemlâ ‘soil’) and Num+N: perš-o-džerelo ‘first, primary source’ (← perše džerelo ‘id.’, stem perš- of the ordinal numeral perše ‘first’ + -о- + džerelo ‘source’). The following examples can be regarded as synthetic compounds: [N+V]N: bur-e-vìj ‘hurricane; lit. storm-blower’ (← vìê burâ ‘storm is blowing’, root bur- of burâ ‘storm’ + -е- + root -vìj- of vìâti ‘to blow’) and [Adv+N]N: pravopis ‘orthography’ (← praviľno pisati ‘to write correctly’, root prav- of praviľno ‘correctly’ + -о- + root pis- of pisati ‘to write’). During the last decades, the number of determinative compounds without a linking vowel has grown due to the influence of loanwords from English and German. They are spelled together or with a hyphen, e.g., medìaìndustrìâ ‘media industry’, internetvidannâ ‘Internet periodicals’ (Klimenko, Karpìlovsʼka and Kislûk 2008: 137 f.).

3.1.2. Adjectival compounds Adjectival compounds are, for instance, represented by the type A+A: temno-sinìj ‘darkblue’ (← temnij ‘dark’ + -о- + sinìj ‘blue’) or Particle+A: nìbitohvorij ‘malingerer, simulator’ (← nìbito ‘as if, like’ + hvorij ‘sick’).

2916

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Synthetic adjectival compounds: [Adv+N]A: bagatovodnij ‘high-water’ (← bagato vodi ‘much water’; bagato ‘much’ + vod-a ‘water’ + -n(ij)); [A+N]A: karookij ‘hazel-eyed’ (← kar-ij ‘hazel’ + -о- + ok-o ‘eye’ + -ij); [N+V]A: slovotvorčij ‘word building’ (← slovo ‘word’ + -о- + tvor-iti ‘to create’ + -č(ij)); [Adv+V]A: gustoroslij ‘thick-growing’ (← gusto rosti ‘to grow thickly’; gusto ‘thickly’ + ros-ti ‘to grow’ + -l(ij)); [Num+N]A: peršoklasnij ‘first-class’ (← peršij klas ‘first class’; perš-ij ‘first’ + -о+ klas ‘class’ + -n(ij)), odnokìmnatnij ‘one-room’ (← odna kìmnata ‘one room’; odn‘one’ + -o- + kìmnat-a ‘room’ + -n(ij)).

3.1.3. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds are rare, e.g., N+V: bogotvoriti ‘to deify, idolize’ (← boga tvoriti ‘to create an idol, God’.

3.1.4. Adverbial compounds Here belong, for instance, formations like [Prep+Num+Adv]Adv: vobidvìruč ‘by both hands’ (← v obidvì ruki, with alternation k → č) and [A+N]Adv: bosonìž ‘barefoot’ (← bos-ij ‘bare’ + -o- + root nìž- of noga ‘leg’, with alternation o → ì and g → ž). As can be seen by the examples above and others to follow, Ukrainian word-formation is characterized by rich root/stem allomorphy with vowel alternations in the root and some suffixes and consonant alternations at the morpheme boundary.

3.2. Copulative compounds Copulative compounds are represented in various parts of speech, but are not numerous, e.g., N+N: lavrovišnâ ‘laurel-cherry’, divan-lìžko ‘studiocouch; lit. sofa-bed’; A+A: čorno-bìlij ‘black and white’, garnij-pregarnij ‘very beautiful; lit. beautifulPREF.INTENS-beautiful’; Num+A: peršij-lìpšij ‘some, any’ (← peršij ‘first’ + adjective (comparative) lìpšij ‘better’); V+V: dumati-gadati ‘to think and to suppose’; Adv+Adv: rano-vrancì ‘early in the morning’ (← rano ‘early’, v ‘in’ + ranci, prepositional case of ranok ‘morning’), tiškom-niškom ‘on the sly, secretly; lit. quiet-quiet’ (the latter can be regarded as a type of reduplication, see also section 7); Pron+Pron: samij-samenʼkij (with intensifying suffix -enʼk-) ‘absolutely alone; lit. alone-very alone’ (see also section 7). Designations resulting from the m e r g e r o f s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s without any linking elements are not regarded as compounds; in some works on Ukrainian word-

160. Ukrainian

2917

formation they are treated as results of so-called lexical-syntactic word-formation, or juxtaposition (Klimenko 2007b: 639−640; 2007d: 842), e.g., panotecʼ ‘priest’ (← pan ‘master’ + otecʼ ‘father’), Velikdenʼ ‘Easter’ (← archaic short form velik of velikij ‘great’ + denʼ ‘day’); vìčnozelenij ‘evergreen’ (← vìčno ‘ever’ + zelenij ‘green’), legkoporanenij ‘lightly wounded’ (← legko ‘lightly’ + passive past participle poranenij ‘wounded’). Formations like zvečora ‘since evening’ (← genitive singular of večìr ‘evening’ + preposition z ‘since’) can be considered as a type of conversion (see section 5).

4. Derivation Modern Ukrainian derivation is characterized by three onomasiological categories distinguished by Dokulil (1962): transposition, mutation and modification. T r a n s p o s i t i o n a l derivatives differ from their bases only in their syntactic function; the derivative and its derivational base are always distinct parts of speech: gorìnnâ ‘burning’ (← gorì-ti ‘to burn’), sinâva ‘the dark blue’ (← sin-ìj ‘dark blue’), odinicâ ‘(figure) one’ (← odin ‘one’). Derivatives with new meanings, belonging to the same or to another part of speech, are regarded as results of m u t a t i o n : pligun ‘jumper’ (agent noun) (← pligati ‘to jump’), čajnik ‘teapot’ (← čaj ‘tea’), bìlizna ‘underwear’ (← bìl-ij ‘white’), odinak ‘single, bachelor’ (← odin ‘one’), nìkudišnìj ‘unfit, very bad’ (← nìkudi ‘nowhere’ + infix -š- + -n(ìj)). M o d i f i c a t i o n is considered as the formation of words within the same part of speech which have their basic meaning enriched by new connotations or axiological features, in particular, diminutives and augmentatives like nosik ‘small nose’ (← root nos- of nìs ‘nose’), nosûra ‘big nose’ (← root nos-), or adjectives with intensifying and hypocoristic suffixes: mal-enʼk-ij ‘very small’, mal-ûsìnʼk-ij ‘very, very small’ (← malij ‘small’). The productivity of the above mentioned categories in forming words of different parts of speech varies. The individual methods of affixal word-formation − prefixal, suffixal, as well as circumfixal, being supplemented with infixes (bound elements attached to suffixes) and the postfix -sâ are characterized by different degrees of activity (Žovtobrûh 1979; Klimenko 1984; Karpìlovsʼka 1999). The formation of derivatives with various categorial meanings is influenced by the part of speech of the primary word, its semantics and origin (indigenous/loaned), monosemy/polysemy, primary/secondary character (i.e. underived/derived), its ability to take certain positions in a sentence, etc. Ukrainian word-formation uses resources such as indigenous affixes and stems inherited from Old Russian as well as means borrowed from Western European languages: German, English, French, Italian, often mediated through Polish or Russian, or through these languages from Old Greek and Latin.

4.1. Denominal nouns Derivation of nouns is the most active and diverse word-formation process as far as the resources and methods as well as the spectrum of categorial and subcategorial meanings

2918

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

are concerned (Valûh 2005). Transposition is represented by various types of abstract nouns, mutation is characteristic of a wide spectrum of concrete nouns, and modification is typical of diminutives and augmentatives (including expressive-evaluative nuances), denominations of young animals, and others. Suffixal word-formation may involve morphonological changes in the root/stem (Fedurko 2003). Ìvan Ì. Kovalik believed that the following nouns, mostly due to their suffixes, are specifically Ukrainian within nominal word-formation, i.e. they do not have any formal correspondence in other Slavic languages: ševčenko ‘shoemaker’s son’ (← root ševč- of švecʼ ‘shoemaker’ + suffix -en- ‘young creature’ + personal suffix -k-); kostomaha ‘big bone’ (← root kost- of kìsť ‘bone’ + augmentative suffix -omah-); mušva ‘mass of flies’ (← root muš- of muha ‘fly’ + collective suffix -v(a)). However, according to Kovalik (1965), the major productive types of Ukrainian noun formation are Common Eastern Slavic and, in general, Common Slavic.

4.1.1. Prefixation Prefixation of nouns is represented by derivatives with the following meanings expressed by native and borrowed prefixes: a) Temporal/locative: pereddenʼ ‘eve’ (← pered ‘before’ + denʼ ‘day’), peredpokìj ‘(entrance) hall, anteroom’ (← pered ‘in front of’ + pokìj ‘room’); b) Locative/hierarchical: nadderžava ‘superpower, superstate’ (← nad- ‘over, above’ + deržava ‘state’), pìdklas ‘subclass’ (← pìd- ‘under-’ + klas ‘class’); c) Quantitative: pavìter ‘gentle wind’ (← pa- ‘incomplete feature’ + vìter ‘wind’), nedooplata ‘underpayment’ (← nedo- ‘sub-, under-’ + oplata ‘payment’); d) Negative: neŝastâ ‘misfortune’ (← ne- ‘not’ + ŝastâ ‘fortune’), antigeroj ‘antihero’ (← anti- ‘anti-, against’ + geroj ‘hero’), kontrudar ‘counterblow’ (← contr- ‘counter-’ + udar ‘blow’).

4.1.2. Suffixation Suffixes are the most active resources in the formation of denominal nouns: P e r s o n a l n o u n s are motivated by denominations of various attributes or objects of activities, e.g., golov-anʼ ‘big-headed man’ (← golov-a ‘head’), bandur-ist ‘bandura player’ (← bandur-a ‘a typical Ukrainian musical instrument’). Words of this category can also be derived on the basis of case forms with prepositions, e.g., pri-hvost-enʼ ‘henchman’ (← pri hvostì ‘at the tail’), or they can be regarded as result of circumfixation. Names of inhabitants are, e.g., ukraïn-ecʼ ‘Ukrainian’, ukraïn-ka ‘Ukrainian woman’ (both ← Ukraïna ‘Ukraine’); N o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s comprise some serial derivatives such as names of substances, e.g., vod-enʼ ‘hydrogen’ (← vod-a ‘water’), types of meat, e.g., svin-ina ‘pork’ (← svinâ ‘pig’), names of months, e.g., berez-enʼ ‘March’ (← berez-a ‘birch’), li-penʼ ‘July’ (← lipa ‘lime’);

160. Ukrainian

2919

I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s , names of tools, e.g., borozn-ik ‘agricultural machine for driving the furrows’ (← borozn-a ‘furrow’), vìkon-nicâ ‘shutter’ (← root vìkon- of vìkn-o ‘window’); as result of circumfixation o-dvìr-ok ‘doorpost’ (← dvìr ‘backyard’); P l a c e n o u n s , names of premises, etc.: kvìt-nyk ‘flower garden’ (← kvìt ‘blossom’), ptaš-nâ ‘poultry yard’ (← root ptaš- of ptah ‘bird’), mis-nik ‘shelf, dresser for plates’ (← mis-a ‘plate’); C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s : selân-stvo ‘peasantry’ (← selânin ‘peasant’, with truncation of the singulative suffix -in), direktor-at ‘directorate’ (← direktor ‘director’); S i n g u l a t i v e n o u n s : namist-ina ‘bead’ (← namisto ‘necklace’); N a m e s o f y o u n g c r e a t u r e s : ptaš-enâ ‘nestling, chick’ (← root ptaš- of ptah ‘bird’); D i m i n u t i v e s : hlopč-ik ‘little boy’ (← stem hlopč- of hlopecʼ ‘boy’), mìst-ok ‘small bridge’ (← mìst ‘bridge’); A u g m e n t a t i v e s : bič-iŝe ‘big bull’ (← bik ‘bull’), vìtr-ûga ‘strong wind’ (← root vìtr- of vìter ‘wind’). Some suffixes lose their diminutive or augmentative meanings − synchronically, the derivatives are synonyms of the base word, e.g., dìva and dìv-icâ (← dìv-) ‘girl, maiden’ or polotno and polotn-iŝe (← polotn-o) ‘linen’ (cf. Puzynina 1978: 196; Karpìlovsʼka 1999: 103−120 on tautological suffixes, and Bulahovsʼkij 1978 on deetymologization of derivatives). Desemantization of diminutives can also occur in metaphorization, e.g., zub-ecʼ (← zub ‘tooth’) ‘small tooth’ and ‘merlon’. F e m a l e p e r s o n a l n o u n s and nouns referring to f e m a l e a n i m a l s , e.g., učiteľ-ka ‘female teacher’ (← učiteľ ‘teacher’); vedmed-icâ ‘female bear’ (← vedmìdʼ ‘bear’).

4.2. Deadjectival nouns Prefixes are only marginally productive in the formation of deadjectival nouns. Suffixаtion prevails among deadjectival derivatives (Greŝuk 1995). A b s t r a c t n o u n s as a result of transposition show high productivity, e.g., molodisť ‘youth’ (← molod-ij ‘young’), zl-oba ‘anger’ (← zl-ij ‘angry’), siv-ina ‘grey (colour of) hair’ (← siv-ij ‘grey’). Some abstract nouns are formed without affixes, e.g., blakiť ‘blue, azure’ (← blakit-nij ‘blue’), tiš-a ‘quiet, stillness’ (← tih-ij ‘quiet, still’; h → š) and can be regarded as results of conversion (see section 5). Names of m a l e and f e m a l e p e r s o n s / c r e a t u r e s are the most numerous among mutational derivatives: ûn-ak ‘young man’, ûn-ka ‘teenage girl’ (← ûn-ij ‘young’), sinicâ ‘tomtit’ (← sin-ìj ‘blue’). There are also names of s u b s t a n c e s : gol-iš ‘round, smooth pebble’ (← gol-ij ‘naked’), čorn-ilo ‘ink’ (← čorn-ij ‘black’); names of p l a n t s and f r u i t s : žovt-âk ‘overripe cucumber’ (← žovt-ij ‘yellow’); d i s e a s e s : krikliv-icì ‘hysteria’ (← kriklivij ‘loud’ ← krik ‘cry’); n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a : âsn-ina ‘fair weather’ (← âsn-ij ‘fair’); p l a c e n o u n s : mìl-ina ‘shoal’ (← mìlk-ij ‘shallow’), and others. The following derivatives are, due to their suffixes, specifically Ukrainian compared to other Slavic languages: vesel-oŝì ‘merriment’ (← vesel-ij ‘merry’), visoč-ìnʼ ‘height’ (← visok-ij ‘high’) (Kovalik 1965).

2920

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.3. Deverbal nouns Deverbal noun formation is very active in Ukrainian since the semantic valency of verbs allows the implementation of a broad spectrum of categorial word-formation meanings of the derived nouns (Klimenko 1982). As in other parts of speech, the formation of these nouns is most active at the first level of derivation. With increasing complexity of its structure, the verb narrows the spectrum of possible categorial meanings of the derived noun, cf. hod-ìnnâ ‘walking’ (← hod-i-ti ‘to walk’), hod-ok ‘walker’ (← hod-iiti), hod-ulâ ‘stilt’ (← hod-i-ti), hìd-nik ‘pavement’ (← hìd- variant of the root hod-), but only zahìd ‘sunset’ from the prefixed verb zahoditi ‘to set’. Deverbal nouns are most regularly formed with the use of suffixes. A c t i o n n o u n s : bi-ttâ ‘beating’ (← bi-ti ‘to beat’). (Suffixless abstract nouns, like vìdlìt ‘take off’ ← vìdlìt-a-ti ‘to fly away’, can also be regarded as results of conversion, see section 5); A g e n t n o u n s : uči-teľ ‘teacher’ (← uči-ti ‘to teach’), čit-ač ‘reader’ (← čit-a-ti ‘to read’) (similar patterns can be seen in animal nouns, cf. griz-un ‘rodent’ ← griz-ti ‘to gnaw’). The suffix in the following noun is specifically Ukrainian: mazepa ‘sloven’ (← maz-a-ti ‘to stain’ + -еp-(a)) (Kovalik 1965); R e s u l t n o u n s : pisʼ-mo ‘writing (sequence of letters or words on sth.)’ (← pis-ati ‘to write’), vibìr-ki ‘residues after selection’ (← vibir-a-ti ‘to select’); cf. also suffixless result nouns like napis ‘inscription’ (← napis-a-ti ‘to write (down)’); I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : hod-ulâ ‘stilt’ (← hod-i-ti ‘to go’), toči-lo ‘grindstone’ (← toč-i-ti ‘to grind’); P l a c e n o u n s : sel-iŝe ‘settlement’ (← sel-i-ti ‘to settle’), plav-nì ‘ground covered with water’ (← plav-a-ti ‘to swim’).

4.4. Denominal adjectives 4.4.1. Suffixation The formation of adjectives with the use of suffixes is the most active and varied in its means (Greŝuk 1995). The most productive suffixes used for the derivation of r e l a t i o n a l adjectives are -n(ij) and -ov(ij): ruč-nij ‘manual’ (← root ruč- of ruka ‘hand’), gum-ovij ‘(made of) rubber’ (← gum-a ‘rubber’). A special category in Slavic word-formation is constituted by relational adjectives, exclusively derived from personal proper names and kindred terms with the suffixes -iv from masculine nouns and -in from feminine nouns (called “possessive adjectives” in Slavic grammars), e.g., baťk-ìv ‘father’s’ (← baťk-o ‘father’), mam-in ‘mother’s’ (← mam-a ‘mum, mother’). Thanks to metaphorization, relational adjectives (e.g., zolotij ‘golden’ ← zoloto ‘gold’) may develop qualitative meanings, compare zolotij perstenʼ ‘golden ring’ and zolotij harakter ‘golden (very good) temper’. Such relational-qualitative adjectives may designate a mere relation to that which is designated by the motivating noun, or s i m i l a r i t y or p o s s e s s i o n of that which is expressed by the base word, e.g., colour: buzk-ovij ‘lilac’ (← stem buzk- of buzok ‘li-

160. Ukrainian

2921

lac’); shape: kvadrat-nij ‘square’ (← kvadrat ‘square’); location: verh-nìj ‘upper, top’ (← verh ‘top’); taste: sol-onij ‘salty’ (← root sol- of sìľ ‘salt’), etc. Exclusively q u a l i t a t i v e adjectives are derived with the suffix -uvat-, expressing similarity, e.g., videlk-uvatij ‘Y-shaped’ (← videlk-a ‘fork’), and -av-/-âv-, denoting full or partial display of the quality, e.g., žil-avij ‘sinewy’ (← žila ‘sinew’), vod-âvij ‘watery’ (← vod-a ‘water’).

4.4.2. Circumfixation Adjectives are also formed by the use of suffixes from prepositional case forms of nouns. They can also be regarded as results of circumfixation. The adjectives express: a) Locative meanings: zakordonnij ‘foreign’ (← za kordonom ‘abroad’; prepositionprefix za ‘behind’ + kordon ‘border’ + -n(ij)), pozaparlamentsʼkij ‘non-parliamentary’ (← poza parlamentom ‘outside the parliament’; preposition-prefix poza ‘outside’ + parlament ‘parliament’ + -sʼk(ij)); b) Temporal or locative meanings: dovoênnij ‘pre-war’ (← do vìjni ‘prior to war’, preposition-prefix do ‘prior’ + stem voên- of vìjna ‘war’ + -n(ij)); povoênnij ‘after-war’ (← po vìjnì ‘after the war’; preposition-prefix po ‘after’ + stem voên- + -n(ij)); c) Absence/lack of sth.: bezborodij ‘beardless’ (← bez borodi ‘without a beard’; preposition-prefix bez ‘without’ + borod-a ‘beard’ + suffix/ending -ij).

4.5. Deadjectival adjectives Modification is intrinsic to deadjectival adjectives. They express negation or various degrees of the relevant quality with a positive or negative connotation. N e g a t i o n is expressed by prefixes, e.g., ne-: nedovgij ‘not long’ (← dovgij); a-: amoraľnij ‘immoral’ (← moraľnij); ìr-: ìrreaľnij ‘unreal’ (← reaľnij). Adjectives expressing the i n t e n s i t y of a quality are derived with prefixes and suffixes, e.g., nad-: nadvisokij ‘very tall’ (← visokij); pre-: pregarnij ‘very beautiful’ (← garnij); super-: supermodnij ‘very fashionable’ (← modnij) and -ezn-: dovžeznij ‘very long’ (← root dovž- of dovgij ‘long’); -enn-: tovstennij ‘very fat’ (← tovstij). The c o m p a r a t i v e of adjectives is formed with the use of suffixes: tih-ìšij ‘more quiet’ (← tihij), dorož-čij ‘more valuable’ (← root dorož- of dorog-ij). Prefixes are used to form the s u p e r l a t i v e of adjectives: naj-tihìšij ‘quietest’ (← comparative tihìšij). A pronoun or adverb attached to these forms and playing the role of a prefix, expresses the meaning of singularity among a multitude of similar entities: ŝo-najtihìšij ‘one of the quietest’ (← najtihìšij + relative pronoun ŝo ‘what’), âk-najtihìšij (← najtihìšij + adverb âk ‘how’). Adjectives with an a p p r o x i m a t i v e meaning can be derived with the prefixes pìdand pri-, e.g., pìdslìpij ‘weak-sighted’ (← slìpij ‘blind’), prigluhij ‘hard of hearing’ (← gluhij ‘deaf’) or with the suffixes -uvat- (zelen-uvat-ij), -âv- (zelen-âv-ij), and -ist- (zelen-ist-ij), all meaning ‘greenish’ (← zelenij ‘green’).

2922

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.6. Deverbal adjectives This subcategory of adjectives denotes the quality of an object according to the action it (usually) accomplishes, tends or likes to do. Suffixes are most active in the formation of deverbal adjectives, e.g.: činnij ‘active’ (← čin-i-ti ‘to act’ + -n(ij)), stìjkij ‘stable’ (← root stìj- of stoâti ‘to stand’ + -k(ij)), dìâľnij ‘active’ (← dìâ-ti ‘to act’ + -ľn(ij)), darčij ‘donative’ (← root dar- of daruvati ‘to donate’ + -č(ij)). Adjectives (with a passive meaning) may also be formed from prefixed verbs, e.g., rozlivnij (← rozliv-a-ti ‘to pour (out)’ + -n(ij)), cf. rozlivne pivo ‘draught beer’, rozlivne moloko ‘unbottled milk’), peredavaľnij ‘transmission’ (← peredava-ti ‘to transmit’ + -ľn(ij)). Some deverbal adjectives are by origin present tense active participles: kolûčij ‘pricky’ (← root kol- of koloti ‘to prick’ + -ûč(ij) with stress shifting from the root to the suffix), cìlûŝij ‘healing’ (← root cìl- of cìliti ‘to heal’ + -ûŝ(ij)), trudâŝij ‘working’ (← root trud- of truditisâ ‘to work’ + -âŝ(ij)) (see also section 5).

4.7. Denominal verbs Verbs are not only actively derived from each other (see section 4.9), but also from other parts of speech − nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. Denominal verbs are formed with the use of suffixes both from underived and derived nouns and may have the following meanings: a) Agentive (N + suffix -uva-/-ûva- + infinitive ending -ti): golovuvati ‘to chair’ (← golova ‘chairman, head’), tovarišuvati ‘to be friends’ (← tovariš ‘friend’), učitelûvati ‘to work as a teacher’ (← učiteľ ‘teacher’ ← uči-ti ‘to teach’), advokatuvati ‘to work as a lawyer’ (← advokat ‘lawyer’); b) Inchoative (N + suffix -ì- + infinitive ending -ti): vesnìti ‘to begin (about spring)’ (← vesna ‘spring’), zvìrìti ‘to brutalize; lit. become a beast’ (← zvìr ‘beast’), kamenìti ‘to turn into stone, become like a stone’ (← stem kamen- of kamìn’ ‘stone’); c) Ornative (N + suffixes -a-, -uva-, -i- + infinitive ending -ti): kvìtčati ‘to decorate with flowers’ (← stem kvìtč- of kvìtka ‘flower’), asfalʼtuvati ‘to asphalt’ (← asfaľt ‘asphalt’), vantažiti ‘to load’ (← vantaž ‘load’); d) Causative/factitive (N + suffixes -i-, -uva- + infinitive ending -ti): gnìviti ‘to give rise to anger’ (← gnìv ‘anger’), durmaniti ‘to befuddle’ (← durman ‘thornapple, narcotic’), geroïzuvati ‘to glorify’ (← geroj ‘hero’ + infix -ì(ï)z-). C i r c u m f i x a t i o n is also used to form verbs with factitive meaning: o-bož-i-ti ‘to idolize’ (← root božof bog ‘God’), pokalìčiti ‘to cripple’ (← root kalìč- of kalìka ‘cripple’). Verbs designating various actions may be formed from one and the same noun with the use of various suffixes, e.g., doŝiti ‘to be raining’ (about rain as a natural phenomenon) and doŝuvati ‘to generate artificial rain using special machinery’ (both derived from doŝ ‘rain’).

160. Ukrainian

2923

4.8. Deadjectival verbs These verbs are formed with the use of suffixes from underived and derived adjectives, but not from modified adjectives expressing the intensity of a quality. The most productive deadjectival verbs are: a) Inchoative (A + suffix -ì- + infinitive ending -ti), e.g., bìlìti ‘to become white’ (← bìl-ij ‘white’), bronzovìti ‘to become of a bronze colour’ (← bronzov-ij ‘bronze’ ← bronza ‘bronze’), sinìti ‘to become dark blue’ (← sin-ìj ‘dark blue’). Some verbs can be formed from the positive as well as from the comparative of adjectives, e.g., žovtìti ‘to become yellow’ (← žovt-ij ‘yellow’) and žovtìšati ‘to become more yellow’ (← žovtìš-ij ‘more yellow’). Verbs derived from adjectives with an approximative meaning are less productive: vodâvìti ‘to become watery’ (← vodâv-ij ‘watery’); b) Factitive (A + suffix -i- + infinitive ending -ti), e.g., siniti ‘to make dark blue’ (← sin-ìj ‘dark blue’), moloditi ‘to make young’ (← molod-ij ‘young’).

4.9. Deverbal verbs In modern Ukrainian, deverbal verb formation is distinguished by a high activity and a large variety of means (cf. Ìľ їn 1958; Klimenko 1973; Žovtobrûh 1979; Voznij 1981; Sokolova 2003). A f f i x a t i o n is the most active process. Suffixes may function as indicators of the infinitive (-ti) and inflectional classes of verbs (thematic vowels -а-, -i-, -ì-). Suffixes and prefixes also express the meaning of verbal aspect and aktionsart as well as spatial and time-related meanings. The use of the postfix -sâ (a relict of the Common Slavic reflexive pronoun sebę) is also a peculiar feature of verbal word-formation. It expresses voice relations, in particular orientation of the action to the subject: učitisâ ‘to learn (itr.)’ ← učiti ‘to teach (tr.)’. The complex system of intraverbal word-formation supports the synthetic typological feature of the Ukrainian grammatical system. Prefixes and suffixes with different meanings may be combined in the structure of verbs. Thanks to such combinations, various relations of the action to the subject or to the object as well as static and dynamic attributes of the subject and object may be expressed in the semantics of deverbal verbs. Verbs can be formed from underived verbs with the use of suffixes, the postfix -sâ, prefixes and circumfixes on four levels of derivation, e.g., biti ‘to beat’ → level I: nabiti (pf.) ‘to pack’ → level II: nabi-va-ti (ipf.) ‘to pack’ → level III: po-nabivati (pf.) ‘to pack a lot of things’ → level IV: ponabivati-sâ (pf.) ‘to crowd’. The formation of verbs from other parts of speech is limited to only two derivation levels, e.g., kučerâviti (ipf.) ‘to make curly’ (← kučerâv-ij ‘curly’) → level I: zakučerâviti (pf.) ‘to have made curly’ → level II: zakučerâviti-sâ (pf.) ‘to have become curly’.

4.9.1. Prefixation Prefixation is most productive in the formation of deverbal verbs. Prefixes may express the meaning of

2924

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

a) Perfective aspect: z-robiti ‘to have done’ (← robiti ‘to do’); b) Various phases of the action and aktionsart: Beginning of the action: po-bìgti ‘to rush’ (← bìgti ‘to run’), za-bìgati ‘to start running’ (← bìgati ‘to run’); end of the action: pri-bìgti ‘to come, arrive running’ (← bìgti), do-bìgti ‘to reach running’ (← bìgti); Limitation of the action in time and space: pro-sidìti ‘to spend some time sitting’ (← sidìti ‘to sit’); pro-mandruvati ‘to travel some distance’ (← mandruvati ‘to travel’); Semelfactivity: po-cìluvati ‘to kiss once’ (← cìluvati ‘to kiss’); Cumulative action (which includes many objects [one after another]): pere-strìlâti ‘to shoot down many people’ (← strìlâti ‘to shoot’); c) Modes and directions of the action in space: vìd-povzti ‘to crawl away’ (← povzti ‘to crawl’), pere-nesti ‘to take from one place to another’ (← nesti ‘to carry’) (Sokolova 2003). One verb may include up to four prefixes, e.g., po-na-z-do-ganâti ‘to have caught up everybody one by one’ (← nazdoganâti ‘to catch up one by one’ ← zdoganâti ‘to chase up’ ← doganâti ‘to chase’ ← dognati ‘to have caught up’) (Karpìlovsʼka 1992: 105).

4.9.2. Suffixation Verbal suffixes are less numerous. They express the following meanings: a) Imperfective aspect: vipis-uva-ti ‘to write out’ (← vipisati (pf.) ‘to have written out’), pìdsum-ov-uvati ‘to summarize’ (← pìdsumuvati ‘to have summarized’); b) Intransitivity: učiti-sâ ‘to learn’ (← učiti ‘to teach’ + postfix -sâ); c) Aktionsart: semelfactivity, e.g., plig-nu-ti ‘to take a leap’ (← pligati ‘to leap’); Intensive semelfactive action, e.g., plig-o-nuti ‘to take a strong, long leap’ (← plignuti); uninterrupted intensive action, e.g., grûk-otì-ti ‘to clatter strongly and continuously’ (← grûkati ‘to clatter loudly’). Circumfixes are also used to express various kinds of aktionsart, e.g., ‘to start an action intensively’ roz-kričati-sâ ‘to start crying strongly’ (← kričati ‘to cry’); ‘to come into condition as a result of intensive action’ do-bìgati-sâ (← bìgati ‘to run’), and others like pere-svist-uva-ti-sâ ‘to whistle to each other’ (← svistìti ‘to whistle’ + prefix pere- + suffix -uva- + postfix -sâ). The spectrum of realizable meanings gets narrow with increased intraverbal derivation levels. At the threshold of the fourth level of derivation, only intransitive verbs with the postfix -sâ or verbs with the meaning of aktionsart (action which includes many objects) may be formed, e.g., ponabivatisâ ‘to crowd’ (cf. section 4.9.1). The change of the stress position also may be used in derivation, e.g.: vínositi ‘to bear (clothes) for a long time’ and vinósiti ‘to carry out sth.’. Enantiosemy can be observed, for instance, in verbs denoting different phases of an action: zagovoriti 1 (itr.) ‘to start speaking’ and zagovoriti 2 (tr.) ‘to exhaust sb. with one’s conversation’.

160. Ukrainian

2925

4.10. Derivation of adverbs Adverbs can be derived with prefixes, e.g., otut ‘just here’ (← tut ‘here’) as well as with suffixes, e.g., teperečki ‘now (expressing endearment)’ (← teper ‘now’). Prefixes may express intensification: nìde ‘nowhere’ (← de ‘where’ + prefix-negative particle nì-), anìde ‘nowhere at all’ (← nìde + prefix-emphatic particle а-). Suffixal adverbs are also regularly derived from the degrees of comparison of qualitative adjectives, e.g., tiho ‘quietly’ (← tih-ij ‘quiet’ + -о), tihše ‘more quietly’ (← tihš-ij ‘quieter’ + -е), najtihše ‘most quietly’ (← najtihšij ‘quietest’ + -е), and from numerals, e.g., tričì ‘three times’ (← tri ‘three’ + -čì). Some adverbs may be considered as circumfixal, e.g., naodincì ‘one on one’ (← odin ‘one’ + prefix na- + suffix -cì). Indefinite adverbs are formed with the use of the elements -nebuď and -sʼ: dе-nebud’ ‘somewhere’ (← adverb de ‘where’ + -nebuď), kolisʼ ‘some time’ (← adverb koli ‘when’ + -sʼ). Composition (see section 3), conversion (see section 5.4) and blending (see section 8) are also typical of adverbs.

5. Conversion Works on Ukrainian word-formation used to consider conversion as a morphologicalsyntactic mode of word-formation, in which the change of the morphological category and syntactic function of the base word is the formal indicator of the derivative (Rusanìvsʼkij and Taranenko 2007: 277). Conversion covers also cases of transition from one part of speech to another. Nominal conversion of adjectives, participles, numerals, and pronouns is most common in Ukrainian. Аs conversion within a single part of speech, some Ukrainian linguists consider the very active transition of relational adjectives into the category of qualitative adjectives and the transition of noun-forms to adverbs and prepositions (cf. Vihovanecʼ and Gorodensʼka 2004: 342−346; Zagnìtko et al. 2007).

5.1. Nominal conversion Adjectives or participles naming characteristics of a person, often are converted to nouns, e.g., čergovij ‘on duty/in charge [doctor]’ (← A), hvorij ‘sick person’ (← A), polonenij ‘captive’ (← past tense passive participle of poloniti ‘to capture’), starij ‘old man’ (← A). Converted to nouns, such words may preserve inherent meanings of gender and number or can be used only in a certain gender or number, and in a specific meaning (sometimes with change of the accent), e.g., majbutnê ‘future (time)’ (as noun only neuter) (← adj. majbutnìj), bratová ‘brother’s wife’ (the stress differs from the adjective brátova (šapka) ‘brother’s (cap)’), vìdpusknì ‘vacation pay’ (only plural). Conversions may function as hyperonyms, e.g., bìle (neuter) ‘white (about everything white)’, varene (neuter) ‘boiled (about everything boiled)’. Some of these words have special meanings: molodij ‘groom’ (← molodij m. ‘young’), moloda ‘bride’ (← moloda f. ‘young’).

2926

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Names of female persons formed from masculine nouns with the use of an ending constitute a special type of nouns: kuma ‘godmother’ (← kum ‘godfather’).

5.2. Adjectival conversion This variety of conversion is characteristic of participles, less so of nouns, numerals, pronouns and adverbs, e.g., zìbranij ‘self-disciplined, concentrated’ (← past tense passive participle of zìbraty ‘to gather’; peršij ‘highest, best’ (← ordinal numeral peršij ‘first’); nìâkij ‘bad, worth nothing’ (← negative pronoun nìâkij ‘no one, none’). Both indigenous and borrowed adverbs combined with nouns may be converted to adjectives: (avtomobìľ ) naprokat ‘rented (car); lit. (car) for renting’, (soročka) navipusk ‘(shirt) worn outside (trousers)’, (znannâ) aprìorì ‘apriori (knowledge)’, (kartoplâ) frì ‘fried (potatoes)’.

5.3. Verbal conversion These formations are not numerous since verbs are actively formed through derivation from nominal parts of speech (see sections 4.7 and 4.8). The following onomatopoeia and interjections may function as verbs: plig ‘hop’, stuk ‘knock’, buľ ‘plop’; oj ‘ouch’, ah ‘ah’, oh ‘oh’. Onomatopoeia in this function may also be considered as deverbal verbs meaning instantaneous actions and formed by clipping (cf. section 8): plig (← plig-ati ‘to leap’), stuk (← stuk-ati ‘to knock’).

5.4. Adverbial conversion Case-forms of nouns without prepositions also may convert to adverbs, e.g., lìtom ‘in summer’ (← ablative singular of lìto ‘summer’), dnâmi ‘these days’ (← ablative plural of den’ ‘day’), gurtom-ladom ‘together, in unison’ (← ablative singular of gurt ‘company’ + ablative singular of lad ‘order’), as well as case forms with prepositions vbìk ‘aside’ (← accusative singular of bìk ‘side’ + v ‘to’), poverhu ‘on top’ (← prepositional case singular of verh ‘top’ + pо ‘on’), zvečora ‘since evening’ (← genitive singular of večìr ‘evening’ + z ‘since’), navesnì ‘in spring’ (← prepositional case singular of vesna ‘spring’ + na ‘in’). Prepositional combinations of case forms of numerals may also convert to adverbs: vodno ‘together’ (← accusative of the neutral numeral odno ‘one’ + v ‘to’); pronouns: peredusìm ‘first of all’ (← ablative of the neutral singular pronoun use ‘everything’ + pered ‘before’). Converted adverbs can be spelled as separate words or hyphenated: sam na sam ‘alone’ (← nominative of the masculine pronoun sam ‘oneself’ + na ‘on’ + accusative of the same pronoun), po-latinì ‘(in) Latin’ (← prepositional case of the noun latin’ ‘Latin’ + po ‘in’). This group of words takes an active part in compounding: voleû-

160. Ukrainian

2927

nevoleû ‘willy-nilly’ (← ablative of the feminine nouns volâ ‘will’ and nevolâ ‘necessity’).

6. Backformation This method of word-formation is common in colloquial language, in particular, in baby talk: loga ‘spoon’ (← root log- of the noun ložka ‘spoon’, its backformation shows irregular alternation of ž → g, opposed to the regular alternation g → ž as in noga ‘leg’ → nìžka ‘small leg’). Backformation is also found in some colloquial nouns designating male persons derived from female personal nouns: doâr ‘milker-man’ (← doârka f. ‘milker, milkmaid’); the regular model is: sekretarka ‘female secretary’ (← sekretar ‘secretary’ + suffix -k(a)).

7. Reduplication Words or parts of words may be repeated to form new words, e.g., interjections: ha-ha ‘ha-ha’, less frequently: ha-ha-ha ‘ha-hа-hа’, buľ-buľ ‘plop-plop’, oj-oj-oj ‘auch-auchauch’ (Taranenko 2007: 568−569). Repetition of a word is used to intensify its meaning: sinìj-sinìj ‘blue-blue, extra blue’, tiho-tiho ‘quietly-quietly, very quietly’, sidìti-sidìti ‘to sit for a long time; lit. to sit-to sit’. Various forms of words with the same stem, but different endings may be repeated: davnim-davno ‘very long ago’ (← ablative and nominative case of the archaic short neutral adjective davno ‘old, ancient’). Root reduplication may be accompanied by enlargement of the second component: tenʼ-telenʼ ‘sound of the bell’ or changing the beginning of the word: tindi-rindi ‘tittle-tattle, empty words’. Often non-affixed and affixed words can be reduplicated, e.g., gustij-pregustij ‘very thick’ (← gustij ‘thick’ + pre(intensifying prefix)), sila-silenna ‘innumerable, very many’ (← sila (here:) ‘large quantity’ + -enn(a)). A specific semantic reduplication effect is represented in words where similar meanings are expressed by various suffixes: vodičenʼka, secondary diminutive to ‘water’ (← stem vodič- of vodicâ, diminutive of voda ‘water’ + suffix -enʼk(a)).

8. Blending Blends cover derivatives in which the beginning of the first and the end of the second word of the primary denominations are connected (cf. Klimenko 2007c: 705 on “telescope words” in Ukrainian), e.g., reanìmobìľ ‘resuscitation ambulance van’ (← reanìmof reanìmacìâ ‘resuscitation’ + -mobìľ of avtomobìľ ‘automobile’), or the initial syllable of the first word and the first letter of the second are combined: viš ‘higher educational institution’ (← syllable vi- of the adjective (comparative) viŝa ‘higher’ + letter š of škola ‘school’). Blending is common in fiction style, so many of these words have their au-

2928

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

thors: čuhraïnecʼ ‘Ukrainian indifferent to his/her culture’ (← čuhra ‘cut brunches of a tree’ + final part -ïnecʼ of ukraïnecʼ ‘the Ukrainian’ (the word was invented by Ostap Višnâ, a Ukrainian writer and satirist of the 20th century), lûbìľ ‘love-pain’ (← syllable lû- of lûbov ‘love’ + bìľ ‘pain’) − the author of this word is Mixajľ Semenko, a Ukrainian futurist poet of the first half of the 20th century (Vokaľčuk 2008).

9. Clipping This method of word-formation prevails among nouns (Žovtobrûh 1979: 314−403; Nelûba 2007). Abbreviations may be composed of the first letters of a multi-word denomination: VNZ ‘higher educational institution’ (← the first letters of the adjectives viŝij ‘higher’ and navčaľnij ‘educational’ and the noun zaklad ‘institution’). They can include the first letters of the components of a compound, e.g., DAÌ ‘state traffic police’ (← deržavna (adj.) ‘state’, avtoìnspekcìâ ‘traffic police’), or the first syllables: Mìnfìn ‘Ministry of Finance’ (← mìnìsterstvo ‘Ministry’ + fìn- of fìnansi ‘finance’). Only the first element of the underlying expression may be reduced: deržmajno ‘stateowned property’ (← root derž- of deržavnij ‘state(-owned)’ + majno ‘property’). Some reduced stems are used in colloquial language independently: zav ‘manager’ (a generally accepted word also in written texts). It goes back to the first part of zavìduvač ‘manager’. Often, suffixes are added to clipped stems: telik (← syllable tel- of televìzor ‘TV-set’ + -ik), vundik (← syllable vund- of the loanword vunderkìnd ‘wonder child, wunderkind’ + -ik) (Stavicʼka 2003).

10. Word-creation Writers often create words, but such designations seldom leave the limits of an individual text. For example, Oleg Čornoguz, a modern Ukrainian writer, invented the following words to ironically denominate various muskrat types: šepeon ‘fur-cap-like muskrat’ (← the sounds še and pe stand for the first letters of the stem šapk- and the root podìb- of the compound adjective šapkopodìbnij ‘fur-cap-like’ + first syllable on of ondatra ‘muskrat’), kačkopon ‘duck-like muskrat’ (← kačkop(odìbnij) ‘duck-like’ + on of ondatra). New word-creations can be formed in analogy to existing words and elements, e.g., bìblìofag ‘bookworm’ (← bìblìo- + -fag ‘-phagus’; cf. bìblìofìl and antropofag ‘anthropophagus, cannibal’). The author of bìblìofag was Mikola Zerov, the head of the Ukrainian neoclassic school in the beginning of the 20th century (Koloїz 2003: 15). The word rajgusak (← syllable raj- of the relational adjective rajonnij ‘district’ + gusak ‘gander’) was invented by the founder of Ukrainian cinematography, filmmaker and writer of the first half of the 20th century, Oleksandr Dovženko; compare the stylistically neutral word of this model: rajsud ‘district court’ (← raj- + sud) (Koloїz 2007).

160. Ukrainian

2929

New words are often created according to the charade principle. Thus, an underived word can become divisible into parts, cf. the real word kavun ‘watermelon’ and the pun kav + un ‘coffee-lover’ (← kava ‘coffee’ + suffix -un) (Koloїz 2003). Punning word-formation may be deemed a type of word-creation, cf. ekstranonsens in the meaning ‘extrasensory charlatan’ (the word was invented by Andrìj О. Bìlecʼkij, a well-known Ukrainian linguist of the 20th century) and the real words nonsens ‘nonsense’ and ekstrasens ‘extrasensory individual’ which was the model for this word (see also section 8).

11. References Âcenko, Ìvan T. 1980–1981 Morfemnij analìz. Slovnik-dovìdnik. 2 Vol. Kiїv: Viŝa škola. Bìlecʼkij, Andrìj O. 1958 Pro spìvstavne doslìdžennâ slovotvoru rìznih mov. In: Naukovij ŝorìčnik za 1957 rìk, 152−154. Kiїv: Vidavnictvo Kiїvsʼkogo deržavnogo unìversitetu. Bulahovsʼkij, Leonìd A. 1978 Deètimologizaciâ v russkom âzyke. In: Leonìd A. Bulahovsʼkij, Vibranì pracì. Vol. 3, 345−372. Kiїv: Naukova dumka. Dokulil, Miloš 1962 Tvoření slov v češtiné. Vol. 1: Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd. Fedurko, Marìâ Û. 2003 Morfonologìâ vìdìmennikovogo slovotvorennâ. Kiїv/Drogobič: Vimìr. Greŝuk, Vasiľ V. 1995 Ukraїnsʼkij vìdprikmetnikovij slovotvìr. Ìvano-Frankìvsʼk: Plaj. Ìľїn, Vasiľ S. 1951 Slovotvìr. In: Leonìd A. Bulahovsʼkij (ed.), Kurs sučasnoї ukraїnsʼkoї lìteraturnoї movi. Vol. 1, 344−427. Kiїv: Radânsʼka škola. Ìľїn, Vasiľ S. 1953 Prefìksi u sučasnìj ukraїnsʼkìj movì. Kiїv: Vidavnictvo AN URSR. Jermolenko, Svìtlana Â. (ed.) 1999 Ukraїnsʼka mova. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. Instytut Filologii Polskiej. Karpìlovsʼka, Êvgenìâ A. 1992 Morfemna sìtka âk ìnstrument doslìdžennâ budovi slova. Ukraїnsʼke movoznavstvo 19: 100−110. Karpìlovsʼka, Êvgenìâ A. 1999 Sufìksaľna pìdsistema sučasnoї ukraїnsʼkoї lìteraturnoї movi. Budova ta realìzacìâ. Kiїv: Ìnstitut movoznavstva ìmenì O. O. Potebnì NAN Ukraїni. Karpìlovsʼka, Êvgenìâ A. 2002 Korenevij gnìzdovij slovnik ukraїnsʼkoї movi. Kiїv: Ukraїnsʼka enciklopedìâ ìmenì Mikoli P. Bažana. Karpìlovsʼka, Êvgenìâ A. 2006 Vstup do prikladnoї lìngvìstiki. Komp’ûterna lìngvìstika. Doneck: Ûgo-Vostok, Ltd. Klimenko, Nìna F. 1973 Sistema afìksaľnogo slovotvorennâ sučasnoї ukraїnsʼkoї movi. Kiїv: Naukova dumka. Klimenko, Nìna F. 1982 Struktura leksiko-semantičnogo polâ. In: Marìâ M. Peŝak (ed.), Formalìzovanì osnovi semantičnoї klasifìkacìї leksiki, 99−194. Kiїv: Naukova dumka.

2930

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Klimenko, Nìna F. 1984 Slovotvorča struktura ì semantika skladnih slìv u sučasnìj ukraїnsʼkìj movì. Kiїv: Naukova dumka. Klimenko, Nìna F. 2007a Kompozicìâ osnov. In: Vìtalìj M. Rusanìvsʼkij and Oleksandr O. Taranenko (eds.), Ukraїnsʼka mova. Enciklopedìâ, 274. 3rd ed. Kiїv: Ukraїnsʼka enciklopedìâ ìmenì Mikoli P. Bažana. Klimenko, Nìna F. 2007b Slovoskladannâ. In: Vìtalìj M. Rusanìvsʼkij and Oleksandr O. Taranenko (eds.), Ukraїnsʼka mova. Enciklopedìâ, 639−640. 3rd ed. Kiїv: Ukraїnsʼka enciklopedìâ ìmenì Mikoli P. Bažana. Klimenko, Nìna F. 2007c Teleskopìâ. In: Vìtalìj M. Rusanìvsʼkij and Oleksandr O. Taranenko (eds.), Ukraїnsʼka mova. Enciklopedìâ, 705. 3rd ed. Kiїv: Ukraїnsʼka enciklopedìâ ìmenì Mikoli P. Bažana. Klimenko, Nìna F. 2007d Ûkstapozit. In: Vìtalìj M. Rusanìvsʼkij and Oleksandr O. Taranenko (eds.), Ukraїnsʼka mova. Enciklopedìâ, 842. 3rd ed. Kiїv: Ukraїnsʼka enciklopedìâ ìmenì Mikoli P. Bažana. Klimenko, Nìna F. and Êvgenìâ A. Karpìlovsʼka 1991 Morfemnì strukturi slìv u sučasnìj ukraїnsʼkìj movì. Movoznavstvo 4: 10−21. Klimenko, Nìna F. and Êvgenìâ A. Karpìlovsʼka 1994 Computer morpheme-word-formative database of the Ukrainian language and its applications. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 2: 113−131. Klimenko, Nìna F. and Êvgenìâ A. Karpìlovsʼka 1998 Morfemìka slov’ânsʼkih mov âk ob’êkt tipologìčnogo vivčennâ. Movoznavstvo 2–3: 117−133. Klimenko, Nìna F., Êvgenìâ A. Karpìlovsʼka, Vìktor S. Karpìlovsʼkij and Tetâna Ì. Nedozim 1998 Slovnik afìksaľnih morfem ukraїnsʼkoї movi. Kiїv: Ìnstitut movoznavstva ìmenì O. O. Potebnì NAN Ukraїni. Klimenko, Nìna F., Êvgenìâ A. Karpìlovsʼka and Larisa P. Kislûk 2005 Škìlʼnij slovotvìrnij slovnik sučasnoї ukraїnsʼkoї movi. Kiїv: Naukova dumka. Klimenko, Nìna F., Êvgenìâ A. Karpìlovsʼka and Larisa P. Kislûk 2008 Dinamìčnì procesi v sučasnomu ukraїnsʼkomu leksikonì. Kiїv: Vidavničij dìm Dmitra Burago. Koloїz, Žanna V. 2003 Tlumačno-slovotvìrnij slovnik okazìonalìzmìv. Krivij Rìg: Âvva. Koloїz, Žanna V. 2007 Ukraїnsʼka okazìonaľna derivacìâ. Kiїv: Akcent. Kovalik, Ìvan Ì. 1958 Včennâ pro slovotvìr. Slovotvorčì častini slova. Ľvìv: Vidavnictvo Ľvìvsʼkogo deržavnogo unìversitetu. Kovalik, Ìvan Ì. 1961 Včennâ pro slovotvìr. Slovotvorča harakteristika slova. Vìdnošennâ včennâ pro slovotvìr do ìnših movoznavčih disciplìn. Ľvìv: Vidavnictvo Ľvìvsʼkogo deržavnogo unìversitetu. Kovalik, Ìvan Ì. 1965 Svoêrìdnì osoblivostì ìmennikovogo slovotvoru ukraїnsʼkoї movi. In: Ìvan K. Bìlodìd (ed.), Gramatičnì ta stilìstičnì studìї z ukraїnsʼkoї ì rosìjsʼkoї mov, 69−89. Kiїv: Vidavnictvo AN URSR. Nelûba, Anatolìj M. 2007 Âviŝa ekonomìї v slovotvìrnìj nominacìї ukraїnsʼkoї movi. Harkìv: Harkìvsʼkij nacìonaľnij unìversitet ìm. V. N. Karazìna. Pavlovskij, Aleksej P. 1818 Grammatika malorosijskogo narečiâ. Sankt-Peterburg: V tipografii Vasiliâ Plaviľŝikova.

160. Ukrainian

2931

Polûga, Lev M. 1983 Morfemnij slovnik. Kiїv: Viŝa škola. Puzynina, Jadwiga 1978 Transpozycja, mutacja, modyfikacja. Poradnik językowy 5: 193−199. Rusanìvsʼkij, Vìtalìj M. 2007 Ukraїnsʼka mova. In: Vìtalìj M. Rusanìvsʼkij and Oleksandr O. Taranenko (eds.), Ukraїnsʼka mova. Enciklopedìâ, 742−744. 3rd ed. Kiїv: Ukraїnsʼka enciklopedìâ ìmenì Mikoli P. Bažana. Sìkorsʼka, Zìnaїda S. 1985 Ukraїnsʼko-rosìjsʼkij slovotvorčij slovnik. Kiїv: Radânsʼka škola. Smaľ-Stocʼkij, Roman 1929 Primìtivnij slovotvìr. Warszawa: Zakłady Graficzne E. i K. Koziańskich. Sokolova, Svìtlana O. 2003 Prefìksaľnij slovotvìr dìêslìv u sučasnìj ukraїnsʼkìj movì. Kiїv: Naukova dumka. Stavicʼka, Lesâ O. 2003 Korotkij slovnik ukraїnsʼkoї žargonnoї leksiki. Kiїv: Kritika. Struganecʼ, Lûbov V. 2002 Dinamìka leksičnih norm ukraїnsʼkoї literaturnoї movi XX stolìttâ. Ternopìľ: Aston. Taranenko, Oleksandr O. 2007 Reduplìkacìâ. In: Vìtalìj M. Rusanìvsʼkij and Oleksandr O. Taranenko (eds.), Ukraїnsʼka mova. Enciklopedìâ, 568–569. 3rd ed. Kiїv: Ukraїnsʼka enciklopedìâ ìmenì Mikoli P. Bažana. Vakarûk, Lûdmila O. and Stefanìâ Ê. Pancʼo 2007 Ukraїnsʼkij slovotvìr u termìnah. Slovnik-dovìdnik. Ternopìľ: Džura. Valûh, Zoâ O. 2005 Slovotvìrna paradigmatika ìmennika v ukraїnsʼkìj movì. Kiїv/Poltava: ASMÌ. Vihovanecʼ, Ìvan R. 2007 Sintetizm. In: Vìtalìj M. Rusanìvsʼkij and Oleksandr O. Taranenko (eds.), Ukraїnsʼka mova. Enciklopedìâ, 619. 3rd ed. Kiїv: Ukraїnsʼka enciklopedìâ ìmenì Mikoli P. Bažana. Vihovanecʼ, Ìvan R. and Katerina Gorodensʼka 2004 Teoretična morfologìâ ukraїnsʼkoї movi. Kiїv: Puľsari. Vokaľčuk, Galina M. 2008 Slovotvorčìsť ukraїnsʼkih poetìv XX stolìttâ. Ostrog: Nacionaľnij unìversitet “Ostrozʼka akademìâ”. Voznij, Teodozìj M. 1981 Slovotvìr dìêslìv v ukraїnsʼkìj movì u porivnânnì z rosìjsʼkoû ta bìlorusʼkoû. Ľvìv: Viŝa škola. Zagnìtko, Anatolìj P., Ìllâ G. Danilûk, Ganna V. Sitar and Ìnna A. Ŝukìna 2007 Slovnik ukraїnsʼkih prijmennikìv. Sučasna ukraїnsʼka mova. Donecʼk: VAO. Žovtobrûh, Mihajlo A. (ed.) 1979 Slovotvìr sučasnoї ukraїnsʼkoї literaturnoї movi. Kiїv: Naukova dumka. Žovtobrûh, Mihail A. and Aleksandr M. Moldovan 2005 Ukrainskij âzyk. In: Aleksandr M. Moldovan, Sergej S. Skorvid and Aleksandr E. Kibrik (eds.), Âzyki mira. Slavânskie âzyki, 513−548. Moskva: Akademiâ.

Ievgeniia Karpilovska, Kiev (Ukraine)

2932

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

161. Belarusian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Minor processes of word-formation References

Abstract The article presents a survey of the system of word-formation in Modern Belarusian and its investigation. The formation of nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs reflects the diversity of affixation in Belarusian, as well as the semantic variety of word-formation types and categories. Special attention is paid to current tendencies in Belarusian wordformation which are determined by the internationalization as well as the nationalization of the Belarusian vocabulary in the late 20 th/early 21st centuries.

1. Introduction Belarusian is a Slavic language of the East-Slavic subgroup. It is mainly spoken in Belarus as well as in Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Lithuania, the USA, and Canada. The total number of people who speak Belarusian is approximately 7 million, including 6,3 million in Belarus (according to the 2009 census). Belarusian, alongside Russian, is one of the official languages in the Republic of Belarus. Belarusian has existed since the 16th century as an autonomous literary language. It was the official written language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and preserved this status until 1696. A large number of written texts were created in Belarusian, including the “Lithuanian Metrics” (the state archive of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) with over 500 volumes of various documents, the “Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” (1581), etc. The texts of the Holy Scripture and West-European belles-lettres literature were translated into the Belarusian language of that period (Old Belarusian). After a two hundred-year break in the written tradition, the new (Modern) Belarusian literary language was formed in the 19 th and early 20th centuries on the basis of the midBelarusian folk dialects. Belarusian writers and poets of the 19 th century such as Kanstancin Veranicyn, Vikencij Dunin-Marcinkevič, Vincent Karatynski, Kastursʼ Kalinoŭski, Francišak Bagušèvič and others contributed to its formation. Major roles in the formation of the literary norms of Belarusian in the 20th century were played by Maksim Bagdanovič, Ânka Kupala, Âkub Kolas and other renowned Belarusian writers and poets of modern age. The norms of the Modern Belarusian literary language are fixed in the academic grammars of Belarusian (GBM 1962 Belarusian Grammar. Vol. 1: Morphology; BG

161. Belarusian

2933

1985 Belarussian Grammar. Part 1: Phonology. Orthoepy. Morphology. Word-Formation. Accentuation; KGBM 2007 Short Belarusian Grammar. Part 1: Phonology. Mophonology. Morphology), explanatory and translation dictionaries (TBSM 1977–84; SBM 2012; BRS 2012 Belarusian-Russian Dictionary; RBS 2012 Russian-Belarusian Dictionary), and special dictionaries (GS1 2007 Grammatical Dictionary of the Verb; GS2 2008 Grammatical Dictionary of the Noun; GS3 2009 Grammatical Dictionary of the Adjective).

2. General overview 2.1. Word-formation in the language system In Modern Belarusian linguistics, word-formation is considered as a separate level of the language system with its specific units and, consequently, as a separate branch of linguistics that has its own object of research − the motivated word, as well as the procedures and means of word-formation. The first complete and quite consistent description of Belarusian word-formation is found in the works of Karskij. The second volume of his fundamental work Belorusy. Âzyk belorusskogo plemeni [The Belarusians. The Language of the Belarusian Tribe] (Karskij 1911) contains the data concerning the ways of forming words by morphological means, with specific features characteristic exclusively of Belarusian. A first complete description of the synchronic system of the Modern Belarusian literary language was provided in the Belarusian academic grammar (GBM 1961), which contains a consistent description of the word-formation of all parts of speech and the study of the major ways of word-formation. The book presents a most complete list of the formants as well as information on the productivity of the main types of wordformation. These traditions are maintained in the other scholarly grammars (BG 1985; KGBM 2007). Theoretical aspects of Belarusian word-formation are laid out in the monograph Slovaŭtvarènne [Word-Formation] (Šakun 1978), which is probably the only work of this kind so far in Belarusian linguistics. The combinatorial properties of the Belarusian affixes are described in Marfemnaâ dystrybucyâ ŭ belaruskaj move [Morpheme Distribution in Belarusian] (Martynaŭ, Šuba and Ârmaš 1967). The main concepts of Belarusian synchronic word-formation, the ways of forming words of different parts of speech and other issues are quite fully presented in the series of special articles in the encyclopedia Belaruskaâ mova [The Belarusian Language] (Mihnevič 1994). Special topics of Belarusian word-formation have been discussed in a number of monographs (e.g., Prygodzič 2000 on compounding; Kandracenâ 2009 on zero-suffixation). Grammatical aspects of Belarusian word-formation, its dependence upon the grammatical categories of the motivating and motivated words are considered in detail in Slovaŭtvarènne і gramatyka [Word-formation and Grammar] (Lukašanec 2001). The first, and up to the present only, word-formation dictionary of the Belarusian language designed according to the alphabetical principle is Slovaŭtvaraľny sloŭnik sučasnaj belaruskaj movy (SSBM 2000).

2934

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

The main tendencies in the development of the Belarusian word-formation system in the late 20th/early 21st centuries are described in the works by Lukašanec, Prygodzič and Sâmeška (1998), Ohnheiser (2003: 59−77, 137−151).

2.2. Overall picture Word-formation in Modern Belarusian is characterized by an extensive system of procedures and means with the help of which lexical units of autosemantic and auxiliary parts of speech are formed (affixation, word- and stem-composition, conversion). In addition, all the affixal means of word-formation found in the Slavic languages are in place in the system of the Belarusian word-formation: prefixes, suffixes, postfixes, and interfixes. It is also characterized by a large variety of the so-called combined affixal word-formation types (i.e. prefixal-suffixal, suffixal-postfixal, etc.). Motivated words are represented within the framework of the main three spheres of word-formation: transposition, mutation, and modification (Dokulil 1962). The results of transposition are derivatives in which the affix merely serves the transpositional function, i.e. they differ from their bases only in their syntactic function; the derivative and its derivational base are always distinct parts of speech. The formation of, e.g., abstract nouns belongs here. The meaning of mutational derivatives is distinct from the meaning of their bases; the change in meaning may (but need not) coincide with a change in the part of speech. Mutation is characterized by the greatest variety of affixes and categorial meanings. Modificational derivatives and their bases refer to the same objects, i.e. they always represent the same part of speech. The affix modifies the meaning of the base as, e.g., in diminutives, augmentatives, etc.

2.3. New phenomena in Belarusian word-formation At present, the system of Belarusian word-formation is developing according to the main tendencies of internationalization and nationalization which are also determining the modern development of other Slavic languages. The innovative phenomena in Belarusian word-formation of the late 20th/early 21st centuries are largely conditioned by these tendencies and are found in the following phenomena: a) Active involvement of borrowings from foreign languages into the process of wordformation, e.g., kamp’ûtar ‘computer’ → kamp’ûtar-ščyk ‘computer man’, kamp’ûtarny ‘computerized, computer (adj.)’, sponsar → sponsar-stv-a ‘sponsorshipʼ, valûta ‘currency’ → bez-valût-n-y ‘non-currency (adj.)’, dyler ‘dealer’ → dyler-sk-i ‘dealer (adj.)’, dyler-stv-a ‘dealing’, marketyng ‘marketing’ → marketyngav-y ‘marketing (adj.)’; b) (Re-)Activation of existing foreign word-formation means, e.g., anty- ‘anti-’ (antyrèfarmatarski ‘directed against reforms’), dè- ‘de-’ (dè-idèalagizacyâ ‘deideologization’), super- ‘super-’ (super-palicèjski ‘superpoliceman’), giper- ‘hyper-’ (giper-inflâcyâ ‘hyperinflation’), pseŭda- ‘pseudo’ (pseŭda-rynak ‘pseudomarket’), kvazi‘quasi’ (kvazi-rèforma ‘quasireform’), kontr- ‘counter-’ (kontr-kancèpcyâ ‘counterconcept’);

161. Belarusian

2935

c) Application of new elements of word-formation: vidèa- ‘video-’, aŭdyë- ‘audio-’, narka- ‘narco-’, èka- ‘eco-’, etc., cf. vidèa-industryâ ‘video industry’, vidèa-piractva ‘video piracy’, narka-biznes ‘drug dealing’, èka-katastrofa ‘environmental disaster’; d) Increase of derivational doublets (word-formation synonymy and variance): mabiľnik ‘mobile phone’ (← mabiľny ‘mobile’) ~ daľkaž-yk ‘id.’ (← dalёka ‘far’ + kazacʼ ‘to talk’) ~ gutar-yk ‘id.’ (← gutarycʼ ‘to talk’); vystupa-ľnik ‘speaker’ ~ vystupoŭc-a ‘id.’ (← vystupacʼ ‘to speak’). The main reason for the parallel functioning of such derivational synonyms and variants in Modern Belarusian should be seen in the desire of the speakers to activate derivational formants which are marked as nationally specific and eliminate those lexical units whose forms coincide with their Russian equivalents; e) Substantial increase of the productivity of different types of composition, e.g., brone-kamizèľka ‘bullet-proof vest; lit. bullet-vest’, grafici-styľ ‘graffiti style’, kava-brèjk ‘coffee break’, fajl-menedžar ‘file manager’, art-galerèâ ‘art gallery’, boŭling-klub ‘bowling club’, šoping-centr ‘shopping centre’; f) Coinage of numerous compounds denoting professions, e.g., sakratar-rèferènt ‘secretary-consultant’, biznes-analityk ‘business analyst’, biznes-kansuľtant ‘business consultant’, brènd-menedžar ‘brand manager’, lèdzi-bos ‘lady boss’; g) Growth of competition of word-formation types and formants, e.g., a d j e c t i v e s : -aľn-/-alёv- (narm-aľn-y − narm-alëv-y ‘normal’), -yŭn-/-ov- (spart-yŭn-y − spartov-y ‘sport (adj.)’), -enn-/-ov- (firm-enn-y − firm-ov-y ‘brand name (adj.)’), -n-/-ov(rèklam-n-y − rèklam-ov-y ‘advertising’); n o u n s : -smen-/-ovec (spart-smen − spartovec ‘athlete’), -ascʼ/-yn-â (boľš-ascʼ − baľš-ynâ ‘majority’), -nn-(e)/-0̸ (apavâdann-e − apoved ‘short story’), etc. Such cases of competition are determined by the tendency towards a normative reevaluation of derivatives. This is a response to the previous period of development in which the Belarusian vocabulary was actively enriched with words taken from or modeled on Russian (the first ones in the above mentioned examples); cf. also d).

3. Composition In Modern Literary Belarusian, composition is one of the productive means of wordformation. It is actively used in the formation of nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. To a limited extent, composition is also represented in the word-formation of numerals, pronouns and verbs. The following varieties of composition are found in the system of Belarusian wordformation: a) Word composition (vagon-rèstaran ‘dining car; lit. carriage-restaurant’); b) Stem composition (žalez-a-beton ← žaleza + beton ‘reinforced concrete’); c) Stem composition combined with suffixation, including zero suffixation (adnakursnik ‘fellow student’ ← adzin kurs ‘one/the same year/course’ + -nik; vadanos ‘water carrier’ ← vadu nasicʼ ‘to carry water’ + -0̸);

2936

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Various types of abbreviations and acronyms are traditionally included in the description of composition (cf. Lukašanec 1995): a) Initial abbreviations: MAZ (← Minski aŭtamabiľny zavod ‘Minsk Automobile Plant’); b) Syllabic acronyms: prafkam (← prafsaûzny kamitèt ‘trade union committee’), agrapram (← agrapramyslovascʼ/agrarnaâ pramyslovascʼ ‘agricultural industry’); c) Formations with one clipped component: velasport (← velasipedny sport ‘bicycle sport’ − clipping of the first component), metrabud ‘metro construction’ (← budaŭnictva metro ‘construction of the metro’− clipping of the second component); d) Combined lettered-syllabic acronyms: BelTA (← Belaruskae tèlegrafnae agenctva ‘Belarusian telegraph agency’); e) Abbreviations consisting of letters and full words: GM-pradukt (← genna-madyfikavany pradukt ‘genetically modified food’), UF-svâtlo (← uľtra-fiâletavae svâtlo ‘ultraviolet light’), etc.

3.1. Degree of structural integration With regard to the structural integration of the components, Belarusian compounds can be distinguished according to the following criteria: a) Formal combination of the stems w i t h a n i n t e r f i x (linking vowel): sneg-a-ŭborka ‘snow removal’ (← uborka snegu ‘removal of snow’), svetl-a-zâlëny ‘light green’ (← svetly + zâlëny ‘light + green’), perš-a-prahodzec ‘pioneer explorer’ (← peršy prahodzicʼ ‘first to go through’), or w i t h o u t a n i n t e r f i x : dyzajn-studyâ ‘design studio’ (← dyzajn + studyâ), raketa-nosʼbit ‘carrier rocket; lit. rocket carrier’); b) Graphic form: compounds s p e l l e d t o g e t h e r , e.g., mašynabudaŭnik ‘machine builder’, lesapasadka ‘wooded area; lit. wood-area’, adnapavârhovy ‘single-storey (adj.)’; compounds with h y p h e n a t e d s p e l l i n g : intèrnèt-kavârnâ ‘Internet-café’, biznes-klub ‘business club’, vâsennâ-letni ‘spring-summer (adj.)’, čorna-bely ‘blackand-white’; c) Peculiarities of inflection: compounds in which only the s e c o n d c o m p o n e n t is declined, e.g., rybakambinat ‘fish factory’ (Gen. rybakambinata), karablebudaŭnik ‘shipbuilder’, šyrakaplečy ‘broad-shouldered’, dvuhmetrovy ‘two-metre (adj.)’; compounds in which b o t h c o m p o n e n t s are declined, e.g., kavârnâ-bar ‘café-bar’ (Gen. kavârni-bara, Dat. kavârni-baru, etc.), duš-masaž ‘shower-massage’, fizikâdzerščyk ‘nuclear physicist; lit. physicist-nucleus-AGENT’.

3.2. Nominal compounds 3.2.1. Determinative compounds Nominal determinative compounds are mainly formed by means of stem-/word-composition and stem-composition with suffixation.

161. Belarusian

2937

a) Stem-/Word-composition N+N (with linking vowel) A b s t r a c t n o u n s : drèv-a-apracoŭka ‘wood processing’, vagon-a-budavanne ‘railway coach manufacturing’, knig-a-gandaľ ‘book trade’; p e r s o n a l n o u n s : praŭd-a-šukaľnik ‘truth seeker’; N+N (without linking vowel) Compounds of the type dyseľ-mator ‘Diesel engine’ have recently been complemented by formations on the basis of modern borrowings; most of them have synonymous wordcombinations N+(Prep+)N-OBL.CASE, cf.: biznes-cèntr ‘business centre’ (and cèntr biznesu ‘centre business-GEN’), biznes-partnër ‘business partner’ (and partnër pa biznesu ‘partner in business-DAT’), dyzajn-cèntr ‘design centre’ (and cèntr dyzajnu ‘centre of design’), intèrnèt-dostup ‘online access’ (and dostup praz intèrnèt ‘access via the Internet’), intèrnèt-galasavanne ‘online voting’ (and galasavanne pa intèrnèce ‘voting via the Internet’), fitnes-klub ‘fitness club’ (and klub fitnesu ‘club of fitness’); A+N This type of compound is mainly represented by words with a clipped first stem of a relational adjective, e.g., èlektrapeč ‘electric furnace’ (← èlektryčnaâ peč ‘id.’), benzapila ‘petrol saw’ (← benzinavaâ pila ‘id.’). b) Composition combined with suffixation In compounds belonging to this type neither the combination of the first two nor of the last two elements exists as free word (see also article 33 on synthetic compounds in German). N+V+SUFF A b s t r a c t n o u n s : sen-a-kos ‘hay making’ (← sena kasicʼ ‘to mow hay’ + -0̸); A g e n t and i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : les-a-rub ‘woodcutter’ (← les rubicʼ ‘to cut wood’ + -0̸), ryb-a-loŭ ‘fisherman’ (← rybu lavicʼ ‘to catch fish’ + -0̸), kanʼk-a-bež-ac ‘skater’ (← begacʼ na kanʼkah ‘to run on skates’ + -ac); beton-a-mâša-lk-a ‘cement mixer’ (← beton mâšacʼ ‘to mix cement’ + -lk-a); A+N+SUFF P e r s o n a l n o u n s : čarn-a-kniž-nik ‘practitioner of black magic’ (← čornaâ kniga ‘black book’ + -nik), čarn-a-mor-ac ‘sailor of the Black Sea fleet’ (← Čornae mora ‘the Black Sea’ + -ac); p l a c e / c o l l e c t i v e n o u n s : čarn-a-les-s-e ‘deciduous forest’ (← čorny les ‘black forest’ + -s-e); Num+N+SUFF A b s t r a c t n o u n s : tysâč-a-god-dze ‘millenium’ (← tysâča gadoŭ ‘a thousand years’ + -dz-e); p e r s o n a l n o u n s : adn-a-vâsk-ovec ‘fellow villager’ (← z adnoj vëski ‘(from) the same village’ + -ovec), vasʼm-i-klas-nik ‘eighth-former’ (← (vučanʼ) vosʼmaga klasa ‘(pupil) of the eighth form’ + -nik); Pron+N+SUFF I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : sam-a-zval ‘dump truck’ (← sam zvaľvae ‘dumps by itself’ + -0̸), sam-a-pis-k-a ‘fountain pen’ (← sama piša ‘writes by itself; lit. self writes’ + -k-a).

3.2.2. Copulative compounds In Belarusian, there are comparatively few compounds (both with and without interfixes) formed on the basis of coordinating word-combinations. For example: les-a-park ‘urban

2938

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

forest’ (← les + park ‘forest and park’), vystava-prodaž ‘trade exhibition; lit. exhibitionsale’; buhgaltar-aŭdytar ‘certified public accountant; lit. bookkeeper-auditor’, mastakdyzajner ‘artist-designer’. An intermediate position among determinative and copulative compounds is taken by compounds which formally consist of two nouns; however, semantically they are motivated by word-combinations with a subordinate connection, e.g., gorad-port ‘port city’ (formally ← gorad ‘city’ + port ‘port’, semantically from partovy gorad ‘port (adj.) city’), gorad-kurort ‘resort town’ (formally ← gorad ‘town’ + kurort ‘resort’, semantically from kurortny gorad ‘resort (adj.) town’).

3.3. Adjectival compounds Adjectival compounds are formed on the basis of word-combinations with a subordinative or coordinative relationship between the parts. They make up a considerable stratum of the motivated vocabulary which is actively replenished by neologisms.

3.3.1. Determinative adjectival compounds Compound adjectives formed from subordinate word-combinations consist of two base stems (connected by an interfix) and an adjective suffix (which may be a zero suffix). Neither the combination of the first two nor of the last two elements exists as free word. Most of these compounds are relational adjectives. A+interfix+N+SUFF lëgk-a-mator-n-y ‘single-engine (adj.)’ (← lëgki mator ‘light engine’), blizk-a-ŭshod-n-i ‘Middle East (adj.)’ (← Blizki Ushod ‘Middle East’), vostr-a-sûžèt-n-y ‘plot’ (adj.)’ (← vostry sûžèt ‘thrilling plot’), gorn-a-metalurg-ičn-y ‘mining’ (← gornaâ metalurgiâ ‘mining metallurgy; lit. mountain-ADJ metallurgy’), pryvatn-a-ŭlasn-ick-i ‘private ownership (adj.)’ (← pryvatnaâ ŭlasnascʼ ‘private ownership’), karotk-a-hval-ev-y ‘shortwave (adj.)’ (← karotkiâ hvali ‘short waves’); with qualitative possessive meaning: dobr-a-sardèč-n-y ‘kind-hearted’ (← dobrae sèrca ‘kind heart’); N+interfix+V+SUFF vod-a-advod-n-y ‘drainage (adj.)’ (← vadu advodzicʼ ‘to drain water’), zern-e-sušy-ľn-y ‘grain drying’ (← zerne sušycʼ ‘to dry grain’), zub-a-lâč-èbn-y ‘dental’ (← zuby lâčycʼ ‘to treat teeth’), naft-a-ačyšča-ľn-y ‘oil refining’ (← naftu ačyščacʼ ‘to refine oil’); qualitative deverbal adjective: vod-a-lŭb-iv-y ‘water-loving’ (← vadu lŭbicʼ ‘to love water’); Num+interfix+N+SUFF (including zero) adn-a-ruk-і ‘one-handed’ (← adna ruka ‘one hand’), dv-uh-mator-n-y ‘two-engine (adj.)’ (← dva matory ‘two engines’), perš-a-razrad-n-y ‘first-category (adj.)’ (← peršy razrad ‘first category’), pâc-i-zork-av-y ‘five-star’ (← pâcʼ zorak ‘five stars’); Indef Num+N+SUFF mnoga-raz-ov-y ‘re-usable’ (← mnoga razoŭ ‘many times’), šmat-tom-n-y ‘in many volumes’ (← šmat tamoŭ ‘many volumes’).

161. Belarusian

2939

3.3.2. Copulative adjectival compounds Adjectives of this type are formed by means of combining two independent (mostly relational) adjectives into a compound with the help of an interfix (A+Interfix+A), e.g., palacava-parkavy (ansambľ) ‘(a group/complex of) palaces and gardens’ ← palacavy ‘palace (rel. adj.)’ + parkavy ‘garden (rel. adj.)’, navukova-papulârny (časopis) ‘popular scientific (magazine)’, arhitèkturna-budaŭničy (instytut) ‘(institute of) architecture and construction; lit. architecture-REL.ADJ-construction-REL.ADJ (institute)’. As a rule, such adjectives are hyphenated. Quite rarely they are spelled in one word: zemnavodnyâ ‘Amphibia; lit. earth-REL.ADJ-water-REL.ADJ’, gluh-a-nâmy ‘deaf and dumb’ (← gluhi ‘deaf’ + nâmy ‘dumb’).

3.4. Other compounds Compounds (including combinations of compounding and suffixation) belonging to other parts of speech are very rare. Among them are v e r b s , e.g., brydk-a-slov-i-cʼ ‘to use bad language’ (← brydki ‘badʼ + slova ‘language; lit. words’ + suffix -i-cʼ), zl-o-ŭžyvacʼ ‘to abuse; lit. evil use’ (← zlo + ŭžyvacʼ), sam-a-pragramavacca ‘to self-program’ (← sam ‘self’ + pragramavacca ‘to program-REFL’), sam-a-raspuskacca ‘to dissolve oneself’ (← sam ‘self’ + raspuskacca ‘to dissolve-REFL’) and numerals, e.g., pâcʼdzâsât ‘fifty’ (← pâcʼ ‘five’ + dzesâcʼ ‘ten’, šèscʼdzâsât ‘sixty’ (← šèscʼ ‘six’ + dzesâcʼ ‘ten’), semsot ‘seven hundred’ (← sem ‘seven’ + sto-GEN.PL ‘hundred’), vosemsot ‘eight hundred’ (← vosem ‘eight’ + sto-GEN.PL ‘hundred’).

4. Derivation Affixal word-formation is extremely productive in Belarusian. It includes prefixation, suffixation and postfixation (i.e. the addition of a derivational morpheme that follows the inflectional ending) as well as a number of combined means (e.g., prefixal-postfixal, prefixal-suffixal derivatives). It is represented by a rich inventory of formants which derive lexical units of various parts of speech and different derivational meanings. Affixal word-formation, especially suffixation, is accompanied by various morphonological transformations of the motivating stem, which, due to the specifics of Modern Belarusian spelling, are reflected in the written form. The most widespread morphonological transformations of the motivating stem are: a) Alternations of vowels, e.g., a/o: vada ‘water’ → vod-n-y ‘water (adj.)’, after palatalized consonants graphically â/ë: lâcecʼ ‘to fly’ → lёt-čyk ‘pilot’ (with a simultaneous alternation of the stem’s final consonant c’/t); è/а: drèva ‘wood’ → draŭl-ân-y ‘wooden’ (+ alternation v/ŭl’), after palatized consonants: e/â, e.g., les ‘forest’ → lâsny ‘forest (adj.)’; o/y: grom ‘thunder’ → grym-e-cʼ ‘to thunder’ (+ alternation m/m’); о/ 0̸: son ‘dream’ → sn-i-cʼ ‘to dream’ (+ alternation n/n’);

2940

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

b) Various alternations of the final consonant, e.g., k/č: ruka ‘hand’ → ruč-an’k-a ‘little hand’; g/ž: naga ‘foot’ → nаž-n-y ‘foot-operated’; d/dz’: vada ‘water’ → vadz-ic-a ‘water-DIM’; t/c’: brat ‘brother’ → brac-ik ‘little brother’; c) Apocopy, e.g., vazi-cʼ ‘to carry’ → vozčyk ‘carrier’ (apocopy of the final і of the stem with simultaneous alternation a/o); d) Extension: kupè ‘compartment’ + -n-y → kupèj-n-y (rel. adj.); kino ‘cinema’ + -nik → kinoš-nik ‘cinema-man/-fan’; e) Contraction of phonemes, e.g., (t + s > c): studènt ‘student’ + -sk-i → studenc-k-i (rel. adj.), pirat ‘pirate’ + -stv-a → pirac-tv-a ‘piracy’; f) Superposition of phonemes: taksi ‘taxi’ + -ist → taksist ‘taxi-driver’, etc.

4.1. Denominal nouns Denominal nouns are formed by prefixation, suffixation (including zero-suffixation), and circumfixation (combined prefixal-suffixal derivation).

4.1.1. Prefixation In Modern Belarusian, nominal prefixation is quite productive, especially with prefixes of foreign origin. The prefixes express the following meanings: a) Temporal, e.g., pra-: dzed ‘grandfather’ → pra-dzed ‘great-grandfather’, unuk ‘grandson’ → pra-ŭnuk ‘great-grandson’; èks-: èks-prèzidènt ‘ex-president’; rè-: rèdèvaľvacyâ ‘redevaluation’; b) Local, e.g., pry-: gorad ‘town’ → pry-garad ‘suburb’; c) Negative, e.g., ne-/nâ-: ščasce ‘happiness’ → nâ-ščasce ‘misfortune’, dolâ ‘fate’ → nâ-dolâ ‘misfortune’; anty-: anty-dèmakrat ‘anti-democrat’, anty-rèklama ‘anti-advertisement’; dè-: dè-mabilizacyâ ‘demobilization’; dys-: dys-kamfort ‘discomfort’, dys-balans ‘imbalance’; d) Antagonistic, e.g., kontr-: kontr-mery ‘counter-measures’, kontr-ataka ‘counter-attack’; e) Comitative, e.g., sa-/su-: aŭtar ‘author’ → su-aŭtar ‘co-author’, daklad ‘report’ → su-daklad ‘supporting report’; f) Intensive, e.g., zvyš-: zadača ‘task’ → zvyš-zadača ‘most important task’; super-: super-geroj ‘superhero’, super-zorka ‘superstar’, super-guľnâ ‘supergame’.

4.1.2. Suffixation Denominal animate and inanimate nouns belong to the following word-formation categories: A b s t r a c t n o u n s , e.g., geroj ‘hero’ → geroj-stv-a ‘heroism’; Darvin ‘Darwin’ → darvin-izm ‘Darwinism’, dogma ‘dogma’ → dagmatyzm ‘dogmatism’; aligarh ‘oligarch’ → aligarh-i-â ‘oligarchy’; vakcyna ‘vaccine’ → vakcyn-acy-â ‘vaccination’;

161. Belarusian

2941

P e r s o n a l (a g e n t) n o u n s , denoting persons by their profession and occupation, e.g., les ‘forest’ → lâs-nik ‘forester’, gryb ‘mushroom’ → gryb-nik ‘mushroom hunter’, vuha ‘ear’ → vuš-nik ‘ear doctor’; mora ‘sea’ → mar-ak ‘seaman’; futbol ‘football’ → futbal-ist ‘football player’, skrypka ‘violin’ → skryp-ač ‘violinist’; lift ‘lift’ → lifc-ёr ‘lift operator’; gazeta ‘newspaper’ → gazet-čyk ‘newsman’, beton ‘concrete’ → betonščyk ‘concrete worker’, kran ‘crane’ → kran-aŭščyk ‘crane operator’. Other nouns denote persons by their belonging to some social, scientific, etc., field/movement, e.g., anarhiâ ‘anarchy’ → anarh-ist ‘anarchist’, islam ‘Islam’ → islam-ist ‘Islamist’; Gegel ‘Hegel’ → gegeľ-ânec ‘Hegelian’, or by a characteristic attribute, e.g., gorb ‘hump’ → garb-un ‘humpback’; sila ‘force’ → sil-ač ‘strong man’. Nouns denoting residents can be derived by the following suffixes, e.g., vёska ‘village’ → vâsk-ovec ‘villager’; gory ‘mountains’ → gor-ac ‘mountaineer’; Minsk (capital of Belarus) → minč-anin ‘Minsk native’; Italiâ ‘Italy’ → itaľ-ânec ‘Italian’; Maskva ‘Moscow’ → maskv-ič ‘Muscovite’. Masculine p a t r o n y m s are derived with the following suffixes: Pёtr → Pâtr-ovič, Alâksej → Alâkse-evič, Kuzʼma → Kuzʼm-ič; female patronyms are derived by -eŭn-a and -aŭn-a, e.g., Sârgej → Sârge-eŭn-a, Ivan → Ivan-aŭn-a. Cf. also denotations of persons by kinship, such as: car ‘tsar’ → car-èvič ‘tsarevich’, knâzʼ ‘prince’ → knâž-yč ‘unmarried son of a prince’; pop ‘Orthodox priest’ → pap-oŭn-a ‘daughter of an Orthodox priest’, car ‘tsar’ → car-èŭn-a ‘tsarevna’. N o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s , e.g., nouns denoting equipment, tools, etc.: vecer ‘wind’ → vâtr-ak ‘wind-mill’; nož ‘knife’ → naž-nic-y (pl. tantum) ‘scissors’; tapor ‘axe’ → tapar-yšč-a ‘handle of an axe’; P l a c e n o u n s : kniga ‘book’ → knig-arn-â ‘book shop’, kava ‘coffee’ → kav-ârn-â ‘café, coffee shop’; bagaž ‘luggage’ → bagaž-nik ‘boot’; agon’ ‘fire’ → vognišč-a ‘bonfire’, popel ‘ash’ → papâl-išč-a ‘site of fire’, buľba ‘potato’ → buľb-ânišč-a ‘potato field’; kvetka ‘flower’ → kvet-nik ‘flowerbed’, cf. also names of containers, etc., such as: čaj ‘tea’ → čaj-nik ‘teapot’, malako ‘milk’ → maloč-nik ‘milk jug’; sup ‘soup’ → sup-nic-a ‘soup tureen’; C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s : sasna ‘pine’ → sason-nik ‘pine forest’; kamenʼ ‘stone’ → kamen-n-e ‘a heap of stones’; dyrèktar ‘director’ → dyrèktar-at ‘directorate’; saldat ‘soldier’ → saldat-n-â ‘soldiery’; studènt ‘student’ → studèn-ctv-a ‘student community’; S i n g u l a t i v e s : saloma ‘straw’ → salom-in-a ‘culm’, garoh ‘pea’ → garoš-yn-a ‘a pea’; pâsok ‘sand’ → pâsč-ynk-a ‘grain of sand’, trava ‘grass’ → trav-ink-a ‘grass blade’. D i m i n u t i v e s : brat ‘brother’ → brac-ik ‘little brother’; sâstra ‘sister’ → sâstryčk-a ‘little sister’; agonʼ ‘fire’ → agen’-čyk ‘spark’; akno ‘window’ → aken-c-a ‘small window’; noč ‘night’ → noč-k-a ‘night’; A u g m e n t a t i v e s : vecer ‘wind’ → vâtr-ysk-a ‘strong wind’; dom ‘house’ → damin-a ‘very big house’; grazʼ ‘mud’ → graz-išč-a ‘heavy mud’; Nouns denoting f e m a l e p e r s o n s : artyst ‘actor’ → artyst-k-a ‘actress’, belarus ‘Belarusian’ → belarus-k-a ‘Belarusian woman’, dakladčyk ‘lecturer’ → daklad-čyc-a (f.), geroj ‘hero’ → gera-in-â ‘heroine’; sâbar ‘friend’ → sâbr-oŭk-a ‘girlfriend’; Nouns denoting f e m a l e a n i m a l s : arol ‘eagle’ → arl-ic-a ‘eagle-hen’, busel ‘stork’ → busl-ih-a ‘stork-hen’, zaâc ‘hare’ → zajč-yh-a ‘doe (female hare)’, leŭ ‘lion’ → ľv-ic-a ‘lioness’; Nouns denoting y o u n g a n i m a l s : busel ‘stork’ → busl-ân-â ‘young stork’, voŭk ‘wolf’ → vaŭč-an-â ‘wolf cub’, losʼ ‘moose’ → las-ân-â ‘moose calf’, sava ‘owl’ → sav-ân-â ‘owl chick’, lisa ‘fox’ → lis-ân-â ‘fox cub’.

2942

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.1.3. Circumfixation Denominal prefixal-suffixal derivatives denote places/areas and various objects, e.g., les ‘forest’ → pera-les-ak ‘copse, coppice; lit. through-forest-SUFF’, berag ‘coast’ → uzbârèž-ž-a ‘sea coast; lit. upwards-bank/shore-SUFF’, akno ‘window’ → pad-akon-nik ‘window sill; lit. under-window-SUFF’, sneg ‘snow’ → pad-snež-nik ‘snowdrop; lit. under-snow-SUFF’, vuha ‘ear’ → za-vuš-nic-y ‘ear-rings; lit. at-ear-SUFF’.

4.2. Deadjectival nouns Deadjectival nouns are formed mainly by means of suffixes. They denote abstract qualities as well as persons and concrete objects characterized by various features. Deadjectival a b s t r a c t n o u n s are formed with the suffixes -ascʼ/-oscʼ (smely ‘bold’ → smel-ascʼ ‘boldness’, prygožy ‘beautiful’ → prygaž-oscʼ ‘beauty’); -yn-â (dobry ‘kind’ → dabr-yn-â ‘kindness’); -izn-a (žoŭty ‘yellow’ → žaŭc-izn-a ‘yellowness’); -at-a (čorny ‘black’ → čarn-at-a ‘blackness’). Deadjectival concrete nouns denote p e r s o n s as well as i n a n i m a t e o b j e c t s characterized by a feature named by the motivating adjective: -čak (vâsëly ‘cheeryʼ → vesâľ-čak ʻcheery fellowʼ); -un (toŭsty ‘fat’ → taŭst-un ‘fat man’); -yst (akuratny ‘neat’ → akurat-yst ‘stickler, pedant’); -ak/-âk (bely ‘white’ → bâl-âk ‘lepus’); -il-a (čorny ‘black’ → čarn-il-a ‘ink’); -ik (bârozavy ‘birch (rel. adj.)’ → bârozav-ik ‘birch sap’).

4.3. Deverbal nouns Deverbal formation of nouns is characterized by a large number of affixes and a great variety of categories of word-formation. Typical categories of deverbal nouns are the following: A c t i o n n o u n s : -nn-e/-enn-e/-ènn-e (čytacʼ ‘to read’ → čyta-nn-e ‘reading’, plesci ‘to plait’ → plâcenne ‘plaiting’, krucicʼ ‘to twist’ → kručènne ‘twisting’); -k-a (padvozicʼ ‘to haul’ → padvoz-k-a ‘haul(age)’, narazacʼ ‘to slice’ → narèz-k-a ‘slicing’); -b-a (kasicʼ ‘to mow’ → kasʼ-b-a ‘mowing’, prasicʼ ‘to request’ → prosʼ-b-a ‘request’), -0̸ (vynosicʼ ‘to remove’ → vynas ‘removal’); A g e n t n o u n s : -nik/-ľnik (budavacʼ ‘to build’ → budaŭ-nik ‘builder’, karystacca ‘to use’ → karysta-ľnik ‘user’); -čyk/-ščyk/-ľščyk (vazicʼ ‘to carry’ → voz-čyk ‘carrier’, vybiracʼ ‘to elect’ → vybar-ščyk ‘voter’, kurycʼ ‘to smoke’ → kury-ľščyk ‘smoker’); -ar/ -âr (zmagacca ‘to struggle’ → zmag-ar ‘struggler’, gandlavacʼ ‘to trade’ → gandl-âr ‘trader’); -èc/-ec (tvarycʼ ‘to create’ → tvar-èc ‘creator’, kasicʼ ‘to mow’ → kas-ec ‘mower’); -ač (glâdzecʼ ‘to watch’ → glâd-ač ‘viewer’), -ak (spâvacʼ ‘to sing’ → spâvak ‘singer’); -ist/-yst (pragramavacʼ ‘to program’ → program-ist ‘programmer’); -c-a (vynahodzicʼ ‘to invent’ → vynahod-c-a ‘inventor’); -un (kryčacʼ ‘to yell’ → kryk-un ‘yeller’); P a t i e n t n o u n s : -enec/-ènec (pasâlicʼ ‘to settle sb.’ → pasâl-enec ‘settler’, vylučycʼ ‘to select’ → vyluč-ènec ‘selectee’), synchronically also -nnik (vygnacʼ ‘to oust’ → vygna-nnik ‘exile’, paslacʼ ‘to send’ → pasla-nnik ‘envoy’, vybracʼ ‘to choose’ → vybra-

161. Belarusian

2943

nnik ‘the elect’), if the bases are not interpreted as passive participles (vygnan-y, paslan-y, vybran-y); R e s u l t and o b j e c t n o u n s : -k-a (strugacʼ ‘to plane’ → struž-k-a ‘chip’, pasylacʼ ‘to send’ → pasyl-k-a ‘package’, nakleicʼ ‘to stick’ → naklej-k-a ‘sticker’); I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : -lk-a, -ak, -ščyk (kapacʼ ‘to dig’ → kapa-lk-a ‘digger’, kasicʼ ‘to mow’ → kasi-lk-a ‘mowing machine’; rèzacʼ ‘to cut’ → raz-ak ‘chopping knife’; padbiracʼ ‘to pick up’ → padbor-ščyk ‘pick up (n.)’); P l a c e n o u n s / n a m e s o f c o n t a i n e r s : -ľn-â and -eľn-â (kapacʼ ‘to dig’ → kapaľn-â ‘mine, pit’, malicca ‘to pray’ → mal-eľn-â ‘tabernacle’); -lišč-e (vučycʼ ‘to learn’ → vučy-lišč-a ‘college’); -lk-a (kurycʼ ‘to smoke’ → kury-lk-a ‘smoking room’, sušycʼ ‘to dry’ → sušy-lk-a ‘dryer’).

4.4. Denominal adjectives Denominal adjectives are formed primarily by means of suffixes and characterized by the lexical variety of motivating stems and the productivity of a number of word-formation types.

4.4.1. Suffixation Denominal r e l a t i o n a l and q u a l i t a t i v e adjectives express the following meanings: a) ‘related to, characteristic of N’: les ‘forest’ → lâs-n-y ‘forest (adj.)’, raka ‘river’ → rač-n-y ‘river (adj.)’, tèatr ‘theatre’ → tèatr-aľn-y ‘theatre (adj.)’, svaboda ‘freedom’ → svabod-n-y ‘free’; gorad ‘city’ → garad-sk-i ‘city (adj.)’; leta ‘summer’ → letn-i ‘summer (adj.)’; pole ‘field’ → pal-âv-y ‘field (adj.)’; b) ‘made of/consisting of N’: drèva ‘tree’ → draŭl-ân-y ‘wooden’, cègla ‘brick’ → cagl-ân-y ‘brick (adj.)’, muka ‘flour’ → muč-n-y ‘floury’, bronza ‘bronze’ → bronzav-y ‘bronze (adj.)’; c) ‘possessing or similar to N’: les ‘forest’ → lâs-ist-y ‘woody’, balota ‘marsh’ → baloc-ist-y ‘marshy’, gory ‘mountains’ → gar-yst-y ‘mountainous’, zolata ‘gold’ → zalac-ist-y ‘golden’; vada ‘water’ → vad-k-i ‘watery’; doždž ‘rain’ → daždž-liv-y ‘rainy’. Animate nouns and given names are the source of the so called p o s s e s s i v e a d j e c t i v e s with the general meaning ‘belonging to the person or animal named by the motivating word’: adjectives from masculine personal (or animal) nouns are derived by -aŭ (brat ‘brother’ → brat-aŭ ‘brother’s’, Ivan → Ivan-aŭ ‘Ivan’s’; zaâc ‘hare’ → zajc-aŭ ‘hare’s’), from female personal (or animal) nouns by -in/-yn (sâstra ‘sister’ → sâstr-yn ‘sister’s’, Taccâna ‘Tatsiana’ → Taccân-in ‘Tatsiana’s’; vavërka ‘squirrel’ → vavërč-yn ‘squirrel’s’). These suffixes combined with the stems of animate nouns (and given names) were an active source of the formation of surnames, e.g., kavaľ ‘blacksmith’ → Kaval-ëŭ, rybak ‘fisherman’ → Rybak-oŭ, mâdzvedzʼ ‘bear’ → Mâdzvedz-eŭ, kunica ‘marten’ → Kunic-yn, Maksim (given name) → Maksim-aŭ (surname).

2944

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.4.2. Circumfixation Prefixal-suffixal denominal adjectives convey local and temporal meanings: a) daroga ‘road’ → pry-darož-n-y ‘roadside; lit. by/near-way-ADJ’; mora ‘sea’ → zamor-sk-i ‘overseas; lit. behind-sea-ADJ’; gory ‘mountains’ → na-gor-n-y ‘upland; lit. on/at-mountain-ADJ’; vada ‘water’ → nad-vod-n-y ‘above-water; lit. over/above-water-ADJ’; zâmlâ ‘land’ → pad-zem-n-y ‘underground; lit. under-land-ADJ’; b) vajna ‘war’ → da-vaen-n-y ‘pre-war; lit. before-war-ADJ’. Nominal stems denoting parts of the human or animal body, combined with the prefix bez-/bes-/bâz-/bâs- ‘without’ and zero suffix form adjectives with a privative meaning, e.g., valasy ‘hair’ → bez-valos-y ‘hairless’, ruka ‘arm’ → bâz-ruk-i ‘armless’, rog ‘horn’ → bâz-rog-i ‘hornless’, krylo ‘wing’ → bâs-kryl-y ‘wingless’.

4.5. Deadjectival adjectives Deadjectival adjectives with various modificational meanings can be formed by prefixes or suffixes. Numerous word-formation types are of high productivity. Over the recent years, the productivity of prefixes of foreign origin has been increasing, as well as the use of modern borrowings as basewords.

4.5.1. Prefixation Adjectival prefixes express a) Negation and opposition: a- (lagičny ‘logical’ → a-lagičny ‘illogical’, maraľny ‘moral’ → a-maraľny ‘immoral’); ne-/nâ- (vâsëly ‘joyful’ → ne-vâsëly ‘sad’, vetlivy ‘polite’ → nâ-vetlivy ‘impolite’); anty- (dèmakratyčny ‘democratic’ → anty-dèmakratyčny ‘antidemocratic’, manapoľny ‘monopolistic’ → anty-manapoľny ‘antimonopoly’ (adj.)); kontr- (praduktyŭny ‘productive’ → kontr-praduktyŭny ‘counterproductive’); b) Temporal meaning: da- (gistaryčny ‘historic’ → da-gistaryčny ‘prehistoric’); post(industryâľny ‘industrial’ → post-industryâľny ‘postindustrial’); c) Intensification: arhi- (važny ‘important’ → arhi-važny ‘very important’); zvyš- (sučasny ‘modern’ → zvyš-sučasny ‘ultramodern’); super- (aktyŭny ‘active’ → super-aktyŭny ‘super active’); uľtra- (levy ‘left’ → uľtra-levy ‘far left’); za- (maly ‘small’ → za-maly ‘too small’, vâliki ‘large’ → za-vâliki ‘too large’, vysoki ‘high’ → za-vysoki ‘too high’).

4.5.2. Suffixation Adjectives with the following modificational meanings are derived from qualitative adjectives by means of suffixes:

161. Belarusian

2945

a) (Intensification of) diminutiveness: -enʼk-i (maly ‘small’ → mal-enʼk-i ‘very small’, tonki ‘thin’ → ton-enʼk-i ‘very thin’); -enečk-i (maly → mal-enečk-i ‘very small’); -ûsenʼk-i (maly → mal-ûsenʼk-i ‘teeny-tiny’); b) Augmentativeness: -arn-y (vâliki ‘large’ → veliz-arn-y ‘huge’; with a simultaneous alternation of the stem’s final consonant k/z); -èzn-y (vysoki ‘high’ → vysač-èzn-y ‘very high’; alternation k/č); c) Approximation: -avat-y (halodny ‘cold’ → haladn-avat-y ‘rather cold’, stary ‘old’ → star-avat-y ‘oldish’), etc.

4.6. Deverbal adjectives In Modern Belarusian, deverbal adjectives are relatively few in number. So are the respective affixes and derivational meanings. Deverbal suffixal adjectives in -ľn-y mostly convey a c t i v e - p u r p o s i v e meaning, e.g., lâta-cʼ ‘to fly’ → lâta-ľn-y (aparat) ‘flying (apparatus)’, kupac-ca ‘to bathe’ → kupa-ľn-y (kascûm) ‘bathing (suit)’, tačy-cʼ ‘to sharpen, grind’ → tačy-ľn-y (stanok) ‘grinder’, plava-cʼ ‘to swim’ → plava-ľn-y (basejn) ‘swimming (pool)’. A c t i v e - m o d a l meaning (inclination) can be expressed by the suffixes -liv- and -k-, e.g., žartava-cʼ ‘to joke’ → žartaŭ-liv-y ‘joky’, lama-cʼ ‘to break’ → lom-k-i ‘fragile’.

4.7. Denominal verbs Denominal verbs are quite actively formed by suffixation and combined prefixation and suffixation or suffixation and postfixation.

4.7.1. Suffixation Denominal verbs belong to the following categories: a) ‘to be N/like N’: prafesar ‘professor’ → prafesar-stvava-cʼ ‘to be a professor, hold a professorship’; razbojnik ‘robber’ → razbojnič-a-cʼ ‘to rob’; partyzan ‘partisan, guerillero’ → partyzan-i-cʼ ‘to be a partizan’, gaspadar ‘owner’ → gaspadar-y-cʼ ‘to manage, keep house’, but: gaspadar-niča-cʼ ‘to play the master’; rybak ‘fisherman’ → rybač-y-cʼ ‘to fish’, maroz ‘frost’ → maroz-i-cʼ ‘to freeze’; b) ‘to perform N/to have N’: patruľ ‘patrol’ → patrul-âva-cʼ ‘to patrol’, gora ‘grief’ → gar-ava-cʼ ‘to grieve’; c) ‘to spend N’: noč ‘night’ → nač-ava-cʼ ‘to spend the night’, zima ‘winter’ → zimava-cʼ ‘to pass the winter’; d) ‘to be in N’: kvatèra ‘flat’ → kvatar-ava-cʼ ‘to lodge’.

2946

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.7.2. Circumfixation Denominal verbs formed by means of circumfixation denote various actions related to what is named by the motivating word. Prefixal-suffixal verbs belong to the following categories: a) ‘to provide with N’: vecer ‘wind’ → pra-vetr-y-cʼ ‘to air’, balota ‘marsh’ → zabaloc-i-cʼ ‘to swamp’, nadzeâ ‘hope’ → ab-nadze-i-cʼ ‘to give hope’, zbroâ ‘arms’ → u-zbro-i-cʼ ‘to arm’, etc.; b) ‘to deprive N’: vada ‘water’ → abâz-vodz-i-cʼ ‘to dehydrate’, les ‘forest’ → abâzles-i-cʼ ‘to deforest’. As an example of suffixal-postfixal denominal verbs may serve kolas ‘ear (of grain)’ → kalas-i-c-ca ‘to be in the ear’.

4.8. Deadjectival verbs Deadjectival verbs are formed by means of suffixation and circumfixation.

4.8.1. Suffixation Verbs of the following categories belong here: a) ‘to be A’: hvory ‘sick’ → hvar-è-cʼ ‘to be sick’; b) ‘to become A’: čorny ‘black’ → čarn-e-cʼ ‘to turn black’, stary ‘old’ → star-è-cʼ ‘to grow old’, cëmny ‘dark’ → câmn-e-cʼ ‘to turn dark’; c) ‘to make A’: bely ‘white’ → bâl-i-cʼ ‘to whitewash’, sini ‘blue’ → sin-i-cʼ ‘to blue, rinse in blue’, suhi ‘dry’ → suš-y-cʼ ‘to dry’.

4.8.2. Circumfixation Prefixal-suffixal deadjectival verbs mostly express the categorial meaning ‘to make A’, e.g., bedny ‘poor’ → z-bâdn-i-cʼ ‘to make sb. poor’, vâliki ‘large’ → pa-vâlič-y-cʼ ‘to enlarge’, prygožy ‘beautiful’ → u-prygož-y-cʼ ‘to beautify’. Prefixal-suffixal-postfixal denominal verbs denote actions of different meanings, e.g., bedny ‘poor’ → pry-bâdn-â-c-ca ‘to show false modesty’, harošy ‘good’ → pry-harošva-c-ca ‘to smarten oneself up’, dobry ‘kind’ → pad-dobr-y-c-ca ‘to flatter’.

4.9. Deverbal verbs Deverbal verbs are formed by prefixation, suffixation, postfixation and circumfixation.

161. Belarusian

2947

4.9.1. Prefixation Prefixal word-formation of verbs is highly productive. It has a broad system of prefixes with various modificational meanings: a) Beginning: gavarycʼ ‘to speak’ → za-gavarycʼ ‘to start speaking’, smââcca ‘to laugh’ → za-smââcca ‘to start laughing’, zvinecʼ ‘to ring’ → za-zvinecʼ ‘to start ringing’; b) Reiteration: čytacʼ ‘to read’ → pera-čytacʼ ‘to reread’, kleicʼ ‘to glue’ → pera-kleicʼ ‘to glue again’; c) Recurrence/distributivity: nasicʼ ‘to carry’ → pera-nasicʼ ‘to carry everything to be carried’, hadzicʼ ‘to walk’ → pera-hadzicʼ ‘to walk time and again’, mycʼ ‘to wash’ → pera-mycʼ ‘to wash up all that was to be washed’; d) Completion: igracʼ ‘to play’ → vy-jgracʼ (pf.) ‘to win the game’, vučycʼ ‘to be learning’ → vy-vučycʼ (pf.) ‘to learn’, gavarycʼ ‘to speak’ → da-gavarycʼ (pf.) ‘to speak to the end’, pisacʼ ‘to be writing’ → na-pisacʼ (pf.) ‘to write’, čytacʼ ‘to be reading’ → pra-čytacʼ (pf.) ‘to read’; e) Directedness: ehacʼ ‘to drive’ → ab’-ehacʼ ‘to drive around sth.’, vy-ehacʼ ‘to drive out’, z’-ehacʼ ‘to move out’, uz’-ehacʼ ‘to drive up’, pera-ehacʼ ‘to move (to change residence)’, ad’-ehacʼ ‘to drive off’, pad’-ehacʼ ‘to drive up to’, pry-ehacʼ ‘to come, arrive (by car, train, etc.)’, za-ehacʼ ‘to drop in’; nesci ‘to carry’ → vy-nesci ‘to carry out’, u-nesci ‘to carry in’, pry-nesci ‘to bring’, pad-nesci ‘to bring to’, ad-nesci ‘to take (away)’, pera-nesci ‘to transport’, uz-nesci ‘to erect’, z-nesci ‘to demolish’; f) Duration or recurrence: čakacʼ ‘to wait’ → papa-čakacʼ ‘to wait for a long time, repeatedly’, ezdzicʼ ‘to go, drive’ → papa-ezdzicʼ ‘to go somewhere time and again, repeatedly’; g) Incompleteness: gavarycʼ ‘to talk’ → neda-gavarycʼ ‘to not say everything’, spacʼ ‘to sleep’ → neda-spacʼ ‘to not get enough sleep’, kasicʼ ‘to mow’ → neda-kasicʼ ‘to not complete mowing’; h) Temporal delimination: spacʼ ‘to sleep’ → pra-spacʼ ‘to oversleep’, vučycca ‘to study’ → pra-vučycca ‘to study over a certain period’; i) Reverse of an action: kvalifikavacʼ ‘to qualify’ → dys-kvalifikavacʼ ‘to disqualify’, infarmavacʼ ‘to inform’ → dez-infarmavacʼ ‘to misinform’; j) Performance of an action in a different way: arganizavacʼ ‘to organize’ → rè-arganizavacʼ ‘to reorganize’. Prefixal verbs formed from simple verbs of the imperfective aspect, in addition to various modificational word-formation meanings, also acquire the grammatical meaning of the perfective aspect. The prefixes na- and pa- are actively involved in the formation of imperfective verbs (from prefixal verbs) with a c u m u l a t i v e meaning, e.g., vybiracʼ ‘to choose’ → navybiracʼ ‘to choose time and again’, abrazacʼ (kusty) ‘to cut bushes’ → pa-abrazacʼ (kusty) ‘to cut many bushes’, rassylacʼ (pisʼmy) ‘to send (letters)’ → pa-rassylacʼ (pisʼmy) ‘to send ((many) letters)’.

2948

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.9.2. Suffixation Verbs with the following meanings are formed by deverbal suffixation: a) Imperfective aspect: perapisacʼ (pf.) ‘to rewrite’ → perapis-va-cʼ (ipf.), raspilavacʼ (pf.) ‘to saw’ → raspiloŭ-va-cʼ (ipf.), padpalicʼ (pf.) ‘to set on fire’ → padpaľ-va-cʼ (ipf.), vynesci ‘to take away’ → vynos-i-cʼ (ipf.), zabudavacʼ (pf.) ‘to build up’ → zabudoŭ-va-cʼ (ipf.); b) Momentaneous action (pf.): kryčacʼ (ipf.) ‘to be shouting’ → kryk-nu-cʼ (pf.) ‘to shout’, stučacʼ (ipf.) ‘to be knocking’ → stuk-nu-cʼ (pf.) ‘to knock’, stralâcʼ (ipf.) ‘to be shooting’ → strèľ-nu-cʼ (pf.) ‘to shoot’; c) Unidirectional (definite) vs. multidirectional (indefinite) motion (both verbs are imperfective): lezci ‘to climb’ → laz-i-cʼ ‘to be climbing’, vesci ‘to lead’ → vadz-i-cʼ ‘to be leading’, nesci ‘to carry’ → nas-i-cʼ ‘to be carrying’, plysci ‘to swim’ → plava-cʼ ‘to be swimming’.

4.9.3. Postfixation In works on Slavic word-formation, postfixation is defined as the addition of a derivational morpheme that follows the inflectional ending. Verbs with reflexive, passive, and intransitive meanings are formed by means of the postfix -sâ (-ca), e.g., mycʼ ‘to wash’ → myc-ca ‘to wash (oneself)’, budavacʼ ‘to build’ → budavac-ca ‘to be under construction’, pâčy ‘to bake’ → pâčy-sâ ‘to be baked’, zlavacʼ ‘to irritate’ → zlavac-ca ‘to be irritated’.

4.9.4. Circumfixation Deverbal prefixal-suffixal, prefixal-postfixal and prefixal-suffixal-postfixal verbs convey various modificational meanings: a) Prefixal-suffixal verbs, e.g., dumacʼ ‘to think’ → raz-dum-va-cʼ ‘to muse (about)’, kryčacʼ ‘to cry’ → us-kryk-va-cʼ ‘to give a cry’, gavarycʼ ‘to say’ → pry-gavor-va-cʼ ‘to keep saying’, zvanicʼ ‘to make a phone call’ → pera-zvon’-va-cʼ ‘to return sb.’s phone call’; b) Prefixal-postfixal verbs, e.g., saturative meaning: gavarycʼ ‘to speak’ → na-gavarycca ‘to have a good long talk’, pracavacʼ ‘to work’ → na-pracavac-ca ‘to have worked enough’, pakutavacʼ ‘to suffer’ → na-pakutavac-ca ‘to suffer much’, dumacʼ ‘to think’ → u-dumac-ca ‘to think over’; other meanings: sluhacʼ ‘to listen’ → prysluhac-ca ‘to listen carefully’, tèlefanavacʼ ‘to make a phone call’ → da-tèlefanavacca ‘to (finally) reach sb. on the phone’; c) Prefixal-suffixal-postfixal verbs, e.g., with the prefix pera- ‘back and forth’: svistacʼ ‘to whistle’ → pera-svist-va-c-ca ‘to send whistle messages to each other’, pisacʼ (pis’my) ‘to write (letters)’ → pera-pis-va-c-ca ‘to correspond’.

161. Belarusian

2949

4.10. Adverbs Belarusian adverbs are formed by prefixes, suffixes and combinations of both from words of various parts of speech (mainly from adjectives, nouns and adverbs). There are only a few adverbs formed from verbs and numerals.

4.10.1. Prefixation Prefixal adverbs are formed from adverbs and denote various modifications of an adverbial feature: a) Negation: ne-/nâ- (šmat ‘much’ → nâ-šmat ‘not much’, dalëka ‘far’ → ne-dalëka ‘not far’, doŭga ‘long’ → nâ-doŭga ‘not long’); b) Intensification: za- (mnoga ‘much’ → za-mnoga ‘too much’, mala ‘little’ → za-mala ‘too little’, holadna ‘coldly’ → za-holadna ‘too coldly’). Some of these adverbs can also be thought of as formed by suffixation from the respective adjectives, cf. nedalëki ‘close’ → nedalëk-a ‘closely’, zahalodny ‘too cold’ → zaholadn-a ‘too coldly’.

4.10.2. Suffixation Suffixal adverbs are actively derived from qualitative adjectives with the help of the suffix -а/-о: nizki ‘low’ → nizk-a ‘lowly’, prygožy ‘beautiful’ → prygož-a ‘beautifully’, staranny ‘careful’ → starann-a ‘carefully’, sardečny ‘cordial’ → sardečn-a ‘cordially’, daŭni ‘long-time’ → daŭn-o ‘long time ago’. The description of deadjectival adverbs with modificational meanings (e.g., proscenʼka ‘very easily’) is not unanimous. In some works they are considered to be formed from the corresponding modificational adjectives (cf. section 4.5.2) by means of the suffix -а/-о ((prost-y ‘easy’ →) prosc-enʼk-i ‘very easy’ → proscenʼk-a ‘very easily’), in others they are treated as i n f i x a l adverbs with a modificational element (infix) inserted between the stem and the adverbial suffix -a/-o (prosta → prosc-enʼk-a). Adverbs with the following meanings are formed, or can be described, in both ways, inasfar as modified adjectives may serve as semantically possible bases: a) Incompleteness of an adverbial feature: strašnavaty ‘rather terrible’ → strašnavat-a ‘rather terribly’, or strašna ‘terribly’ → strašn-avat-a ‘rather terribly’, cesnavaty ‘rather tight’ → cesnavat-a, or cesna ‘tightly’ → cesn-avat-a ‘rather tightly’; b) Expressiveness and diminutiveness: daŭno ‘long ago’ → daŭn-enʼk-a ‘quite long ago’, bela ‘white’ → bâl-ûtk-a ‘very white’, ciha ‘quietly’ → cih-enečk-a ‘very quietly’; ničoga ‘nothing’ → ničag-usenečk-a ‘nothing at all’ (without a corresponding modificational adjective); c) Augmentativeness: strašna ‘horribly’ → straš-ènn-a ‘horrendously’, vysačèzny ‘extremely high’ → vysačèzn-a ‘extremely highly’, or vysoka ‘highly’ → vysač-èzn-a ‘extremely highly’.

2950

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Adverbs with the meaning of t i m e , s p a c e , and m a n n e r , are quite actively formed from nominal stems (diachronically, they can be regarded as case forms, mostly of the instrumental case), e.g., leta ‘summer’ → let-am ‘in summer’, zima ‘winter’ → zim-oj ‘in winter’, večar ‘evening’ → večar-am ‘in the evening’; les ‘forest’ → (isci) les-am ‘to walk through the forest’; dabro ‘kindness’ → dabr-om ‘of one’s own free will’, sila ‘force’ → sil-aj ‘by force’. Suffixal adverbs formed from numerals are very few in number (dva ‘two’ → dvojčy ‘twice’, try ‘three’ → tr-ojčy ‘thrice’), and from verbs (begčy ‘to run’ → beg-ma ‘running’, lâžacʼ ‘to lie’ → lež-ma ‘lying’, taicca ‘to be hidden’ → taj-kom ‘secretly’).

4.10.3. Circumfixation Prefixal-suffixal adverbs are quite varied and numerous in Belarusian. They are derived from words belonging to various parts of speech and denote a broad spectrum of adverbial features (space, time, mode of action, similarity, etc.); diachronically, they go back to prepositional case forms: a) N → Adv: dom ‘house’ → da-dom-u ‘home’, verh ‘top’ → z-verh-u ‘from the top’, leta ‘summer’ → na-let-a ‘for the summer (time)’, večar ‘evening’ → u-večar-y ‘in the evening’, poŭnač ‘midnight’ → a-poŭnač-y ‘at midnight’; b) A → Adv: čysty ‘clean’ → da-čyst-a ‘completely’, pozni ‘late’ → da-pazn-a ‘till late at night’, malady ‘young’ → z-molad-u ‘from one’s youth’, suhi ‘dry’ → na-suh-a ‘dryly’, gluhi ‘tight’ (obsolete meaning) → na-gluh-a ‘tightly’, novy ‘new’ → panov-amu ‘anew’, bracki ‘brotherly’ → pa-brack-u ‘like a brother’, belarusk-i ‘Belarusian’ → pa-belarusk-u ‘in Belarusian’; c) Pron → Adv: moj ‘my’ → pa-moj-mu ‘my way’, naš ‘our’ → pa-naš-amu ‘in our way’, svoj ‘possessive pronoun referring to the subject of a sentence’ → pa-svoj-mu ‘in one’s own way’; d) Num → Adv: dva ‘two’ → u-dv-uh ‘together’, troe ‘three persons’ → u-tra-ih ‘in a threesome’, pâcëra ‘five persons’ → u-pâcâr-yh ‘five together’.

5. Conversion In Belarusian, conversion is a means of forming nouns, adjectives and adverbs as well as auxiliary parts of speech (prepositions, conjunctions) and interjections.

5.1. Nominal conversion Conversion of adjectives to nouns is most common, cf. stary ‘old’ → stary ‘old man’, hvory ‘sick’ → hvory ‘patient’, vučony ‘learned’ → vučony ‘scientist’. The female ending in deadjectival converted nouns denoting rooms such as pryëmny ‘receiving’ → pryëmnaâ f. ‘reception’, nastaŭnicki ‘teaching’ → nastaŭnickaâ f. ‘teaching room’, must

161. Belarusian

2951

be most probably regarded as loan from Russian (where Russ. komnata f. ‘room’ is omitted, whereas the Belarusian denotation of ‘room’ is pakoj m. or kabinet m.).

5.2. Adjectival and adverbial conversion The most widespread type of adjectival conversion are adjectivized participles, e.g., marožany ‘frozen’, sušany ‘dried, dry’. Adverbial conversion is represented by several types which are traditionally described in the domain of suffixal word-formation: a) Deadjectival adverbs in -а/-о: hrabry (neuter hrabra) ‘bold’ → hrabra ‘boldly’ (see section 4.10.2); b) Adverbs formed from nominal case forms: vâsnoj ‘spring-INSTR’ → vâsnoj ‘in spring’, letam ‘summer-INSTR’ → letam ‘in summer’ (see section 4.10.2); c) Another example of conversion is the use of gerunds (adverbial participles) as adverbs: spâšaûčysâ ‘hurrying, in a hurry’, baûčysâ ‘fearing, in fear’, gledzâčy ‘watching’, stoâčy ‘standing’. The numeral adzin ‘one’ used in the meaning of the indefinite pronoun nejki ‘certain, some’ may serve as an example of pronominalization. Conversion is also used in the formation of auxiliary words and interjections, cf. vitaû 1st pers. sing. of the verb vitacʼ ‘to greet’ → vitaû ‘a greeting when meeting someone’, dzâkuj imperative sing. of dzâkavacʼ ‘to thank’ → dzâkuj ‘thank you’.

6. Minor processes of word-formation R e d u p l i c a t i o n is rather insignificant in Belarusian word-formation. It is a way to form words of various parts of speech: a) Adjectives with an intensifying meaning, e.g., bely-bely ‘very white’ (← bely ‘white’), cihi-cihi ‘extremely quiet’ (← cihi ‘quiet’); b) Adverbs with an intensifying meaning, e.g., adzin-adnym ‘all by oneself’ (← adzin ‘one’ + adnym instrumental case of adzin), dze-nidze ‘somewhere’ (← dze ‘where’ + nidze ‘nowhere’), kali-nikali ‘sometimes’ (← kali ‘when’ + nikoli ‘never’); c) Indefinite pronouns, e.g., hto-nihto ‘someone’ (← hto ‘who’ + nihto ‘nobody’), štoništo ‘something’ (← što ‘what’ + ništo ‘nothing’). Cl i p p i n g (non-morpheme truncation) is characteristic of contemporary colloquial style, youth language, university students’ or specific slang, e.g., fan/fanat ‘a sports club/ team fan’ (← fanatyk), laba ‘lab work’ (← labaratornaâ rabota), mers ‘a Mercedes car’ (← mersedès), komp ‘computer’ (← kamp’ûtar), vinda ‘operational system Windows’ (← Vindaŭz ‘Windows’), klava ‘keyboard’ (← klaviâtura).

2952

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

7. References BG = Biryla, Mikalaj V. and Pavel P. Šuba (eds.) 1985 Belaruskaâ gramatyka. Vol. 1: Fanalogiâ. Arfaèpiâ. Marfalogiâ. Slovaŭtvarènne. Nacisk. Minsk: Navuka i tèhnika. BRS = Lukašanec, Alâksandr A. (ed.) 2012 Belaruska-ruskij sloŭnik. 4th ed. Minsk: Belaruskaâ èncyklapedyâ imâ Petrusâ Broŭki. Dokulil, Miloš 1962 Tvoření slov v češtině. Vol. 1: Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV. GBM = Atrahovič, Kandrat K. and Mihail G. Bulahaŭ (eds.) 1962 Gramatyka belaruskaj movy. Vol. 1: Marfalogiâ. Minsk: AN BSSR. GS 1 = Rusak, Valâncina P. 2007 Gramatyčny sloŭnik dzeâslova. Minsk: Belaruskaâ navuka. GS 2 = Arašonkava, Ganna U. 2008 Gramatyčny sloŭnik nazoŭnika. Minsk: Belaruskaâ navuka. GS 3 = Eŭsievič, Nadzeâ P. 2009 Gramatyčny sloŭnik prymetnika, zajmennika, ličèbnika, prysloŭâ. Minsk: Belaruskaâ navuka. Kandracenâ, Iryna U. 2009 Nulâvaâ sufiksaciâ ŭ sistème belaruskaga slovaŭtvarènnâ. Minsk: Belaruskaâ navuka. Karskij, Evfimij F. 1911 Belorusy. Vol. 2: Âzyk belorusskogo plemeni. Varšava: Tipografija Varšavskogo Učebnogo Okruga. KGBM = Lukašanec, Alâksandr A. (ed.) 2007 Karotkaâ gramatyka belaruskaj movy. Part 1: Fanalogiâ. Marfanalogiâ. Marfalogiâ. Minsk: Belaruskaâ navuka. Lukašanec, Alâksandr A. 1994 Adzinki slovaŭtvarènnâ ŭ belaruskaj move (da prablemy ierarhičnaj klasifikacyi). Belaruskaâ lingvistyka 44: 19−26. Lukašanec, Alâksandr A. 1994 Asablivasci semantyčnaj arganizacyi kompleksnyh adzinak slovaŭtvarènnâ. Vesnik BDU (seryâ 4) 3: 43−47. Lukašanec, Alâksandr A. 1995 Skladanaskaročanyâ slovy ŭ sistème belaruskaga slovaŭtvarènnâ. Vesnik BDU (seryâ. 4) 2: 26−30. Lukašanec, Alâksandr A. 1998 Gramatyčny aspekt slavânskaga slovaŭtvarènnâ. Minsk: Prava i èkanomika. Lukašanec, Alâksandr A., Mikalaj R. Prygodzič and Lidyâ I. Sâmeška (eds.) 1998 Belaruskaâ mova. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. Martynaŭ, Viktar U., Pavel P. Šuba and Мaryâ І. Ârmaš 1967 Marfemnaâ dystrybucyâ ŭ belaruskaj move. Minsk: Navuka i tèhnika. Mihnevič, Arnoľd Â. (ed.) 1994 Belaruskaâ mova. Minsk: Belaruskaâ saveckaâ èncyklapedyâ. Ohnheiser, Ingeborg (ed.) 2003 Komparacja systemów i funkcjonowania współczesnych języków słowiańskich. 1. Słowotwórstwo/Nominacja. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. Prygodzič, Mikalaj R. 2000 Slovaskladanne ŭ belaruskaj move. Minsk: BDU. RBS = Lukašanec, Alâksandr A. (ed.) 2012 Russko-belorusskij slovarʼ. 10th ed. Minsk: Belaruskaâ èncyklapedyâ imâ Petrusâ Broŭki.

162. Russian

2953

SBM = Lukašanec, Alâksandr A. and Valâncina P. Rusak (eds.) 2012 Sloŭnik belaruskaj movy. Minsk: Belaruskaâ navuka. SSBM = Bardovič, Anatolij M., Mihail M. Krutalevič and Alâksandr A. Lukašanec 2000 Slovaŭtvaraľny sloŭnik belaruskaj movy. Minsk: Navuka. Šakun, Leŭ M. 1978 Slovaŭtvarènne. Minsk: Vyšèjšaâ škola. TBSM = Atrahovič, Kandrat K. (ed.) 1977−84 Tlumačaľny sloŭnik belaruskaj movy. 5 Vol. Minsk: Belaruskaâ saveckaâ èncyklapedyâ. Vasileŭski, Mikalaj S. 1985 Dzeâsloŭnae slovaŭtvarènne. Minsk: Vyšèjšaâ škola.

Alâksandr Lukašanec, Minsk (Belarus)

162. Russian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Backformation Reduplication Blending Clipping Word-creation References

Abstract This article presents an outline of Russian word-formation along with the history of studies on this topic. It contains data on essential meanings conveyed by models of Russian word-formation. Word-formation is one of the most frequent means of enriching the vocabulary, even more so than lexical borrowing. The main mechanism is affixation. The type and frequency of affixes may vary with word class: while nouns tend to add suffixes, verbs are more prone to prefixation. Composition is relatively common, though characteristic only of nominal word-formation.

1. Introduction The dawn of theoretical studies of Russian word-formation was the last quarter of the 19 th century. The most eminent of these being works by J. Baudouin de Courtenay

2954

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

(I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè) and his disciples. According to their conception, a distinction must be made between derivational relations in the contemporary language, on the one hand, and the actual manner in which word-formation was carried out in the past, on the other; furthermore, it is necessary to study the means of word-formation in the contemporary language from the perspective of their productivity. The necessity of discerning between synchronic and diachronic approaches to word-formation was explicitly stated by F. F. Fortunatov. J. Baudouin de Courtenay and other linguists of the Kazan School developed principles for dividing words and tokens into smaller meaningful parts such as the idea of degrees of analyzability (Boduèn de Kurtenè 1912: 232). The first scholar to pose the question of the systemic character of word-formation was M. Habdank Kruszewski (N. V. Kruševskij), who argued, “[E]verything which is known in grammars under the general name of word formation, represents a mass of systems. In the huge mass of words which constitute language, these systems are not distinct enough to be noticed under superficial observation” (Kruševskij 1883: 109; English translation cited after Radwańska Williams 1993: 104). The understanding of word-formation as a system was correlated with a desire to study material and semantic relations between words sharing the same morphemes, as well as relations between morphemes inside words. The determination of such relations would contribute to the “segmentation of morphological elements of the word”. Besides, Kruszewski raised an issue of classifying “varieties” of those elements, and analyzed phonetic varieties of roots, suffixes and prefixes. Prior to the 1940s, Russian word-formation was not treated as an object of study in its own right; grammars would have little to no data on word-formation, but what there was could be found in sections on morphology. The first description of affixal types of Russian nominal word-formation was presented by V. V. Vinogradov in his Sovremennyj russkij âzyk [Modern Russian] (Vinogradov 1938). They were analyzed in connection with the morphological categories (gender and declension) of affixed words. Vinogradov retained this approach to word-formation in his later treatise Russkij âzyk. Grammatičeskoe učenie o slove [The Russian Language. The Grammatical Theory of the Word]. Studying deverbal nouns, G. O. Vinokur demonstrated several techniques of analysis: contrastive analyses of constructions conveying similar meanings and of semantic and formal restrictions on the base words, along with extralinguistic stimuli that facilitate word-formation; these methods became recurrent in papers written afterwards. A new approach towards Russian word-formation was proposed by Vinokur (1946) in Zametki po russkomu slovoobrazovaniû [Notes on Russian Word-Formation]. There he formulated basic principles of synchronic word-formation analysis based on the formal and semantic correlation of a compound or derivative with a “corresponding primary stem”. In 1951 and 1952, Vinogradov published articles on connections between word-formation, grammar, and lexicology, in which he revealed peculiarities of word-formation as a specific field of study. Vinogradov (1975a [1951], 1975b [1952]) was a pioneer in presenting a systematized classification of “varieties” and “types” (in his own terms) of word-formation, his works having been sources for sections on word-formation in Volume 1 of the scholarly Russian grammar (Grammatika russkogo âzyka 1952) and in Sovremennyj russkij âzyk. Morfologiâ [Modern Russian. Morphology] (1952), which contained a more profound description of the word-formation of nouns and adjectives

162. Russian

2955

(included in the corresponding sections on morphology). Yet, in these works, there was little distinction drawn between the morphology and word-formation of Russian verbs. From the mid-1950s to present, owing to the subsequent surge of interest in wordformation, numerous studies have appeared dealing with various types of nominal and verbal word-formation as well as research into various aspects of derivational relations. These include works by Šanskij (1959), Ânko-Trinickaâ (1962), Lopatin (1977, 2007), Uluhanov (1977, 2005, 2012), Miloslavskij (1980), Manučarân (1981), Ermakova (1984), Tihonov (1985), Grigor’ev (1986), Vinogradova (1992), Zemskaâ (1992), Krongauz (1998), Kubrâkova (1999, 2004), Blinova (2010), etc. The most explicit description of word-formation as a system of types interacting with each other can be found in Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo âzyka [A Grammar of Modern Standard Russian] (1970) and the scholarly edition of Russkaâ grammatika [Russian Grammar], vol. 1 (1980), which include hierarchic relations of types and classes, general and specific meanings, and morphological differences between the motivating and motivated words. The papers published in the period from the 1960s to the 1980s posed new questions essential for the theory of word-formation as well as for the adjacent field of morphemics, including the contemporary development of Russian word-formation (in particular, the increase of analytism and agglutination in the structure of derived and compound lexemes) with its linguistic and extralinguistic origins; the correlation between derivational and morphemic analyses, problems of discerning meaningful units within words (“degrees of analyzability”); debates over non-morphemic word elements having no semantic meaning, known as “interfixes”, as well as identification of morphs and morphemes; the role of morphonology in word-formation; paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations between units; and the peculiarities of word-formation in the vernacular (see Panov 1968; Zemskaâ 1973; Lopatin 1977; Uluhanov 1977; Zemskaâ, Kitajgorodskaâ and Širâev 1981; Šmelev 1982). Intensive studies on word-formation went on throughout the following years. The investigations include, e.g., relations between synchrony and diachrony, types of motivation, functions of motivated words in texts, general rules of morphemic compatibility (Ermakova and Zemskaâ 1991; Uluhanov 2005), and stylistic resources of word-formation (Vinogradova 1992). Lately, there has been an increasing interest in neologisms and occasional words, not only for the purpose of illustrating how productive or widespread word-formation strategies are, but also in order to find certain patterns undetectable in the regular vocabulary. These studies are concerned with the dynamic aspect of word-formation, which is seen as an activity (cf. Zemskaâ 1992). Other investigations include the understanding of motivated words, their memorization and activation. There is also a tendency to apply cognitive approaches to theoretical problems of word-formation, found, among others, in Kubrâkova (1999, 2004), as well as to study how aspects of word-formation might reflect the Russian mentality. Intensive research on active processes in word-formation is ongoing, aided by dictionaries of new words, such as Novye slova i značeniâ [New Words and Meanings] (Levašov 1997) and recent advances in neology. A wealth of new data on the tendencies of Russian word-formation typical of the late 20th and the early 21st centuries has been gathered and analyzed, covering a period of dramatic changes in society, such as democratization (active use of informal and colloquial words and means of word-formation),

2956

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

internationalization (a wider use of foreign morphemes, new derivatives based on loanwords), deideologization (elimination of attitude in the semantics of many motivated words), the burst of neologisms and occasional words in everyday speech and mass media; cf. Zemskaâ (1996). New dictionaries of word-formation have appeared (cf. Tihonov 1985; Širšov 2004; see also article 131 on dictionaries).

2. General overview The system of Russian word-formation is essentially similar to that of other Slavic languages. Word-formation is one of the most frequent means of enriching the vocabulary, even more so than lexical borrowing. The main mechanism is affixation, comprising prefixation, suffixation, postfixation, as well as combined techniques (prefixation + suffixation, prefixation + postfixation as well as the less active suffixation + postfixation). The type and frequency of affixes may vary with word class: while nouns tend to add suffixes, verbs are more prone to prefixation. Composition is relatively common, though characteristic only of nominal word-formation. Most morphemes are Slavic in origin, cf. the suffixes -nik, -čik/ŝik, -teľ (personal/ agent/instrument nouns), -nij-(e), -stv-(o) (abstract nouns); -n(yj), -ov(yj), -sk(ij) (relational adjectives), pere- ‘over-, trans-; again’ and others, the prefix po- (perfective aspect and delimitative aktionsart), and the verbal suffix -i(ť), etc. Yet, borrowed morphemes, including classical and neoclassical ones (of Latin and Greek origin) are also widely present, e.g., -acij-(a) ‘-ation’, -izm ‘-ism’, -(t)or, de-, avia-, avto- ‘auto-’, agro-, anti-, bio-, evro- ‘euro-’, kvazi- ‘quasi-’, neo-, post-, tele-, tehno- ‘techno-’, èko- ‘eco-’, èks‘ex-’, etc. Neoclassical elements are regularly used in forming new terminology, e.g., avia-kompleks ‘air hub’, bio-blok ‘filter media’, bio-komp’ûter ‘biocomputer’, tele-faks ‘fax’, èko-tehnika ‘recycling equipment’ (Levašov 1997). They can also be found in informal speech, cf. informal nonce words tele-klûkva ‘ridiculous television gossip; lit. TV cranberry’, bio-trëp ‘biology-related rant’ (Zemskaâ 1996: 190), èks-muž ‘ex-husband’. Derivation and composition differ in respect of the number of words used: in derivation, a basic unit consists of one word, whereas compounds comprise two or more. This makes composition somewhat similar to word combinations, a syntactical phenomenon. The difference between the two is that a compound, like any other word, is an inseparable unit. Many compounds may be correlated with synonymous word combinations, cf. samolëtostroenie ‘aircraft manufacturing’ − stroenie samolëtov ‘aircraft building; lit. building aircraft-GEN.PL’; yet, there are a lot of compounds that have no such correlation, cf. vert-o-lët ‘helicopter; lit. whirl + linking vowel (interfix) -o- + flyer’, životn-o-vod ‘stock farmer; lit. animal-o-breeder’, etc.

162. Russian

2957

3. Composition 3.1. Composition proper An inherent feature of a compound is two or more radical morphemes or stems (a head and its modifier) found in one inseparable lexeme. The head is represented by a stem with grammatical affixes, effectively a lexeme, while a modifier consists of only a stem. The radical components have a linking element (interfix) between them. Russian interfixes include -o- (les-o-zagotovki ‘logging; lit. timber-storing’, angl-o-russkij ‘English-Russian’, sam-o-ustranit’sâ ‘to keep aloof; lit. self-remove’); -u- (pol-u-krug ‘semicircle’, pol-u-šerstânoj ‘half-woolen’, pol-u-zakryť lit. ‘to half-close’); -i- (doz-i-metr ‘radiation detector’, gaz-i-ficirovať ‘to gasify, provide gas supply’), sorv-i-golova ‘daredevil; lit. tear-off-head’ (an exocentric compound); -â- (seb-â-lûbie ‘selfishness; lit. selflove’, seb-â-lûbivyj ‘selfish; lit. self-loving’); -uh- (dv-uh-letie ‘second anniversary; lit. two-year-ABSTR’, dv-uh-tomnyj ‘in two volumes; lit. two-volumed’); -ёh- (četyr-ёhstenok ‘four-walled cabin’, tr-ёh-ètažnyj ‘three-storied’); zero interfix (Nov-gorod, agitmassovyj ‘dealing with mass propaganda’). Of these, -o- is the most productive interfix.

3.1.1. Nominal compounds Determinative nominal compounds have a nominal head and a modifying component (two or more are rare) that specifies the meaning of the head. Modifiers go first, featuring nominal (hleb-o-zavod ‘plant bakery; lit. bread-factory’), adjectival (suh-o-frukty ‘dried fruit; lit. dry-fruit’) and numeric (dv-u-okisʼ ‘dioxide’) stems, as well as international borrowings (ge-o-himiâ ‘geochemistry’, mikr-o-fiľm ‘microfilm’, mon-o-reľs ‘monorail’). The modifiers’ final vowel o is considered an interfix here (see Russkaâ grammatika 1980: 252). Nominal compounds with bound heads include words such as tekst-o-log ‘textual critic’, slavân-o-fil ‘Slavophile’, fiľm-o-teka ‘film archives, film collection’. Copulative nominal compounds combine semantic features denoted by their components, e.g., sever-o-zapad ‘North-West’, les-o-park ‘recreational forest; lit. forest-park’.

3.1.2. Adjectival compounds Heads of determinative adjectival compounds are adjectives or participles, both active and passive. Modifiers, which specify the meaning of heads, are usually represented by stems of nouns (moroz-o-stojkij ‘frostproof’), adjectives (star-o-moskovskij ‘typical of the old Moscow; lit. old-Moscow-REL.ADJ’), numerals (odn-o-komnatnyj ‘studio [apartment] (adj.); lit. one-room-REL.ADJ’), as well as bound components (psevd-o-narodnyj ‘faux folk, faux vernacular; lit. pseudo-folk’, mikr-o-poristyj ‘microporous’). Copulative adjectival compounds combine the semantic features of their components, e.g., mâso-moločnyj ‘meat and dairy [products, etc.]; lit. meat-milk-REL.ADJ’, belo-rozovyj ‘pale pink; lit. white-pink’.

2958

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

3.1.3. Verbal compounds A compound verb is always subordinative, with its head being either a notional verb (pol-u-obnâť ‘to give a little hug; lit. half-hug, half-embrace’) or a bound component -ficirovať (cf. English -(i)fy), e.g., radi-o-ficirovať ‘to equip with a radio, install a radio system’. Modifying components are usually stems of nouns (gaz-i-ficirovat’ ‘to gasify, provide gas supply’) or adjectives (intens-i-ficirovať ‘to intensify’). Two more components are polu- ‘half’ (pol-u-ležať ‘to recline; lit. half-lie’) and samo- ‘self’ (sam-ovosplamenâťsâ ‘to self-ignite’).

3.1.4. Adverbial compounds The heads of adverbial compounds are adverbs or adverbial participles modified by polu‘half’, cf. pol-u-temno ‘dim, scantily; lit. half-dark’, pol-u-lëža ‘in a reclining posture; lit. half-lying’.

3.2. Composition combined with suffixation This procedure of word-formation, where neither the combination of the first two stems nor of the second stem + suffix exist as independent words, is rather productive in Russian (see also article 33 on synthetic compounds in German).

3.2.1. Nominal compounds combined with suffixation Compounds of this type consist of a modifier, a head, and a suffix. The head contains a verbal or nominal stem, e.g., basn-o-pis-ec ‘fable writer’, starš-e-klass-nik ‘senior high school student; lit. elder-grader’, respectively. The modifier of a suffixal nominal compound may be a stem of a noun (kon’k-o-bež-ec ‘ice-skater; lit. skates-runner’, narod-ovlast-ie ‘grass-roots democracy; lit. people-reign’), adjective (dolg-o-ži-teľ ‘long-liver’, pust-o-slov-ie ‘battology; lit. empty-word-ABSTR’, vtor-o-kurs-nik ‘second-year college student; lit. second-courser’), pronoun (sam-o-podava-teľ ‘self-feeder’, sam-o-vlast-’e ‘autocracy, absolute rule; lit. self-power-ABSTR’), numeral (desât-i-bor-ec ‘decathlete; lit. ten-fight-er’), and verb (vert-i-hvost-ka ‘flirtatious girl; lit. whirl-tail-er’).

3.2.2. Adjectival compounds combined with suffixation The heads of these compounds have either nominal stems (prav-o-berež-nyj ‘standing at the right bank; lit. right-bank-ADJ’) or verbal stems (ogn-e-streľ-nyj lit. ‘fire-shoot-ing’, a component of the collocations ognestreľnoe oružie ‘firearms’, ognestreľnaâ rana ‘gunshot wound’). The stems of the modifiers are nominal (piŝ-e-vari-teľ-nyj ‘digestive; lit. food-digest-ing’), adjectival (skor-o-teč-nyj ‘transient, fleeting; lit. quick-flow-ing’), nu-

162. Russian

2959

merical (pât-i-let-nij ‘five-year-long; lit. five-year-ADJ’), and, albeit rarely, pronominal (seb-â-lûb-ivyj ‘selfish; lit. self-lov-ing’) and adverbial (mim-o-let-nyj ‘fleeting; lit. byfly-ing’).

3.2.3. Adverbial compounds combined with suffixation The heads of these compounds have verbal stems. Two kinds of modifiers are possible, namely the adverb mimo ‘by, passing by’ or the pronominal component samo ‘self’, e.g., mim-o-ezd-om ‘casually driving by; lit. by by-driving’, sam-o-hod-om ‘on foot; lit. by self-walking’.

3.3. Juxtaposition Two or more words are amalgamated without interfixes and without any alterations of their morphemic structure, e.g., dolgo igraûŝij ‘long playing’ → dolgoigraûŝij ‘longplaying’. Adjectival juxtapositions have adjectives and participles serving as heads, with nouns in oblique cases (uma-lišënnyj ‘insane; lit. mind-GEN-deprived’) and adverbs as modifiers (dorogo-stoâŝij ‘expensive; lit. expensively costing’, trudno-dostupnyj ‘hard-toreach; lit. hard-accessible’). Verbal juxtapositions have verbal heads and nominal (sometimes prepositional) modifiers, e.g., zlo-umyšlâť ‘to harbor malicious thoughts; lit. evil-intend’, za-blago-rassudiťsâ ‘to think, see fit, like, come into one’s head; lit. for-good-decide’. Juxtaposition combined with suffixation can be found in nouns (ničegonedelanie ‘idleness; lit. nothing-doing’ ← ničego ne delať ‘to do nothing’), adjectives (potustoronnij ‘otherworldly, weird; lit. beyond that side-ADJ’ ← po tu storonu ‘beyond; lit. on that side’), and verbs (hristaradničať ‘to ask alms’ ← Hrista radi ‘for Christ’s sake’).

4.

Derivation

4.1. Denominal nouns 4.1.1. Prefixation Denominal prefixal derivatives convey the following meanings: a) Locative: za-granica ‘overseas; lit. behind-border’; pod-zagolovok ‘subheading’; Pred-aľpy ‘Prealps’; b) Temporal: do-istoriâ ‘prehistory’; pere-sledstvie ‘reinitialized criminal investigation’; re-èvakuaciâ ‘re-evacuation’; posle-dejstvie ‘aftereffect’; èks-prezident ‘ex-president’; c) Intensive: ras-krasavec ‘very handsome man’; sverh-čelovek ‘Nietzschean superhuman; lit. over-man’; èkstra-klass ‘extra-class’;

2960

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

d) Similarity: pod-karakuľ ‘cloth similar to Astrakhan wool; lit. under-Astrakhan’; e) Supplementary: prizvuk ‘side tone; lit. by-tone’; f) Hierarchical: vice-prezident ‘vice-president’; pro-rektor ‘pro-rector’; pod-gruppa ‘subgroup’; arhi-episkop ‘archbishop’; nad-semejstvo ‘superfamily’; ober-master ‘general foreman of a blast-furnace plant’; g) Comitative: so-avtor ‘co-author’; h) Privative/negative: bes-porâdok ‘mess, turmoil; lit. without-order’; ne-porâdok ‘mess, minor malfunction; lit. not-order’; dis-garmoniâ ‘disharmony’; anti-tezis ‘antithesis’; de-montaž ‘disassembly, dismantlement’.

4.1.2. Suffixation Suffixal denominal nouns are subdivided into those that convey specifying or mutational meanings, and those with modifying meaning (cf. Dokulil 1962: 129−149; Russkaâ grammatika 1980: 183, 257). The former ones are found in lexemes as čajnik ‘kettle, teapot’ (← čaj ‘tea’). As for the latter, the meaning of the derivative is effectively identical to that denoted by its template, differing only in one modifying feature, cf. čajnik ‘teapot’ vs. čajnič-ek ‘little teapot; lit. teapot-DIM’. a) Denominal nouns of specifying (mutational) meanings include: A b s t r a c t n o u n s denoting status, actions, and properties, cf. kloun-ada ‘clownery, travesty’ (← kloun ‘clown’); gero-izm ‘heroism’ (← geroj ‘hero’); diktat-ura ‘dictatorship’; P e r s o n a l n o u n s , e.g., mor-âk ‘sailor’ (← more ‘sea’); desant-nik ‘paratrooper’ (← desant ‘landing, landing operation’); vodoprovod-čik ‘plumber’ (← vodoprovod ‘water-pipe’); Inanimate nouns denoting i n s t r u m e n t s , o b j e c t s , s u b s t a n c e s , e.g., gradusnik ‘thermometer’ (← gradus ‘degree’); topor-iŝe ‘axe handle’ (← topor ‘axe’); svinina ‘pork’ (← svin’â ‘pig’); kofe-in ‘caffeine’ (← kofe ‘coffee’); P l a c e n o u n s , e.g., pepel-iŝe ‘site of the fire, hearth and home; lit. ash-site’ (← pepeľ ‘ashes’); korov-nik ‘cowshed’ (← korova ‘cow’); pekar-nâ ‘bakery’ (← pekar’ ‘baker’). b) Modificational meanings include: D i m i n u t i v e s , e.g., kartin-ka ‘little picture’ (← kartina); statu-ètka ‘statuette, figurine’ (← statuja); H y p o c o r i s t i c s , e.g., berëz-on’ka ‘little slender birch’ (← berëza ‘birch’); pap-ulâ ‘daddy’ (← papa); D i m i n u t i v e s / h y p o c o r i s t i c s , cf. hleb-ec ‘nice little loaf’ (← hleb ‘bread’); gorod-ok ‘small town (may have a degree of approval)’ (← gorod ‘town’); ruč-onka ‘little hand, arm (usually that of a small child)’ (← ruka); Diminutives with p e j o r a t i v e s h a d e s , e.g., zavod-iško ‘petty factory’ (← zavod); komnat-ënka ‘doghole; lit. room-DIM+PEJ’ (← komnata). Depending on the context, pejorative connotations expressed by means of diminutive and hypocoristic suffixes may vary, cf. vremečko (← vremâ ‘time’) in Skaži, pridët li vremečko … ‘Tell me if that sweet time will ever come’ (N. A. Nekrasov) and Nu i vremečko nastalo, užas ‘Oh, the times we live in, they are horrible’ (conversation);

162. Russian

2961

A u g m e n t a t i v e s , often with pejorative shades, e.g., holod-ina ‘extremely cold weather’ (← holod ‘cold, chill’); žar-iŝa ‘blazing and annoying heat’ (← žara); vetr-ilo ‘very strong wind’ (← vetr); F e m a l e p e r s o n s or a n i m a l s , e.g., gero-inâ ‘heroine’ (← geroj); pisateľ-nica ‘lady writer’ (← pisateľ); medved-ica ‘female bear’ (← medveď); S i m i l a r i t y, e.g., mač-eha ‘stepmother’ (← mat’ ‘mother’); meteor-it ‘meteorite’ (← meteor); N o n - a d u l t b e i n g s , e.g., volč-onok ‘wolf cub’ (← volk ‘wolf’); zver-ënyš ‘youngling, young animal’ (← zver’ ‘wild animal’); C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s , e.g., metr-až ‘footage’ (← metr ‘meter’); rebât-nâ ‘bunch of kids’ (← rebâta pl. of rebenok ‘child, kid’); berez-nâk ‘birch grove’ (← bereza ‘birch’); S i n g u l a t i v e s , e.g., kartofel-ina ‘single, one potato’ (← kartofeľ ‘potato(es)’); pylinka ‘speck of dust’ (← pyľ ‘dust’); S t y l i s t i c m o d i f i c a t i o n , cf. staruš-enciâ ‘old woman (informal, ironic), old hag’ (← staruha ‘old woman’); Nast-ëha (an informal and somewhat offensive derivative of Nastâ, a diminutive form of the female name Anastasiâ); vor-ûga ‘thief (informal, offensive)’ (← vor ‘thief’).

4.1.3. Circumfixation Circumfixal denominal nouns (prefixation combined with suffixation) consist of the following classes: A b s t r a c t n o u n s denoting status, actions, and properties, e.g., a-ritm-iâ ‘arrhythmia’; bez-vetr-ie ‘calm; lit. without-wind-ABSTR’; bez-rabot-ica ‘unemployment; lit. without-work-ABSTR’; here also belong nouns with temporal meanings, e.g., pere-mir-ie ‘truce; inter-peace-ABSTR’; pred-čuvstv-ie ‘presentiment’; Nouns denoting h u m a n b e i n g s or a n i m a l s , cf. bes-pridan-nica ‘fortuneless young girl; lit. without-dowry-FEM.PERS’; so-kurs-nik ‘fellow student; lit. with-coursePERS’; I n a n i m a t e n o u n s , e.g., bez-rukav-ka ‘sleeveless shirt, jerkin; lit. without-sleeveSUFF’; pod-snež-nik ‘snowdrop; lit. under-snow-SUFF’; anti-gripp-in ‘popular antiinfluenzal medicine; lit. anti-flu-in’; P l a c e n o u n s , e.g., za-les-’e ‘lands beyond the wooded area; lit. behind-woodSUFF’; pod-okon-nik ‘window-sill; lit. under-window-SUFF’; pri-gor-ok ‘hill with gentle slopes; lit. by-/near-mountain-SUFF’; pere-les-ok ‘field woodland, grove; lit. betweenforest-SUFF’; S i m i l a r i t y, e.g., pa-syn-ok ‘stepson; lit. by-son-SUFF’; po-brat-im ‘sworn brother; lit. by-brother-SUFF’; su-glin-ok ‘clay loam, loamy soil; lit. with-clay-SUFF’; L o w e r d e g r e e s i n h i e r a r c h i e s , e.g., pod-pas-ok ‘herdboy; lit. under-pastureAGENT’; Names of n o n - a d u l t b e i n g s , e.g., pod-svin-ok ‘young pig; lit. under-pig-SUFF’.

2962

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.2. Deadjectival nouns 4.2.1. Suffixation Suffixal deadjectival nouns are subdivided into two groups: A b s t r a c t n o u n s (often combined with other meanings), e.g., nov-izna ‘novelty’ (← novyj ‘new’); zl-oba ‘malice’ (← zloj ‘wicked, evil’); bystr-ota ‘quickness, swiftness’ (← bystryj ‘quick, swift’); udaľ-stvo ‘daredevilry’ (← udaloj ‘daring, bold’) and b e a r e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y expressed by the base adjective, some of them specifying this meaning. These fall into two classes: animate, e.g., hrabr-ec ‘brave man, valiant’ (← hrabryj ‘brave’); umn-ic-a ‘clever person’ (← umnyj ‘clever, smart, wise’); star-uha ‘old woman’ (← staryj ‘old’); âder-ŝik ‘nuclear physicist’ (← âdernyj ‘nuclear’), and inanimate; the latter denote physical objects or phenomena, e.g., kupaľn-ik ‘swimsuit’ (← kupaľnyj ‘bathing’); lečebn-ica ‘clinic, nursing home’ (← lečebnyj ‘curing, healing’).

4.2.2. Circumfixation Circumfixal deadjectival nouns are divided into those which denote qualities (pra-zelen’ ‘green paint in icon painting, blue-green colour; lit. near to-green-0̸’ ← zelënyj ‘green’; the prefix expresses an approximative meaning), and those that denote animate (perestar-ok ‘sb. too old for sth.; lit. too-old-SUFF’ ← staryj ‘old’) and inanimate objects (pod-berëzov-ik ‘birch boletus; lit. under-birch-SUFF’ ← berezovyj ‘birch-REL.ADJ’).

4.3. Deverbal nouns 4.3.1. Suffixation Suffixal deverbal nouns are subdivided into the following categories: A b s t r a c t n o u n s (transpositions), e.g., instrukt-až ‘instructing’ (← instruktirovať); risova-nie ‘drawing, sketching’ (← risovať ‘to draw’); bor’-ba ‘struggle, strife’ (← boroťsja ‘to struggle’); abstract nouns, denoting properties, abilities, e.g., soprotivlâ-emosť ‘resistibility’ (← soprotivlâťsâ ‘to resist’); R e s u l t n o u n s , e.g., carap-ina ‘scratch, abrasion’ (← carapaťsâ ‘to scratch’); obrub-ok ‘stump, stub’ (← obrubiť ‘to chop off’); vyžim-ki ‘squeezings’ (← vyžimať ‘to squeeze’); A g e n t n o u n s , e.g., vož-ak ‘guide, leader’ (← vodiť ‘to lead, conduct’); tk-ač ‘weaver’ (← tkať ‘to weave’); pobir-uška ‘beggar’ (← pobirať ‘to collect’); klevet-nik ‘slanderer’ (← klevetať ‘to slander’); pisa-teľ ‘writer’ (← pisať ‘to write’); I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s , e.g., čerp-ak ‘scoop’ (← čerpať ‘to scoop’); nosil-ki ‘stretcher’ (← nosiť ‘to bear, carry’); predohrani-teľ ‘safety catch, fuse box; lit. preserver’ (← predohraniť ‘to preserve’); vis-ûľka ‘pendant, hanger’ (← viseť ‘to hang’); O b j e c t / p a t i e n t n o u n s , e.g., paš-nâ ‘ploughland’ (← pahať ‘to plough’);

162. Russian

2963

P l a c e n o u n s , e.g., hrani-liŝe ‘depository’ (← hraniť ‘to keep, save’); kuril-ka ‘smoking room’ (← kuriť ‘to smoke’); spa-ľnâ ‘bedroom’ (← spať ‘to sleep’).

4.3.2. Circumfixation Circumfixal nouns include the following categories: A b s t r a c t n o u n s , e.g., ne-hvat-ka ‘shortage, lack; lit. not-suffice-ABSTR’ (← hvatiť ‘to suffice’); R e s u l t n o u n s , e.g., o-kur-ok ‘cigarette end; lit. by-smoke-SUFF’ (← kurit ‘to smoke’); A g e n t n o u n s , e.g., po-pryg-un ‘jumper, hopper (informal)’ (← prygať ‘to jump’); so-ži-teľ ‘cohabitant’ (← žiť ‘to live’); P a t i e n t or e x p e r i e n c e r , e.g., po-smeš-iŝe ‘butt of the joke’ (← smeâťsâ ‘to laugh’); I n a n i m a t e o b j e c t s / i n s t r u m e n t s , e.g., po-grem-uška ‘rattle’ (← gremeť ‘to rattle’); P l a c e n o u n s , e.g., na-kova-ľnâ ‘anvil; lit. on-forge-PLACE’.

4.4. Denominal adjectives 4.4.1. Suffixation Suffixal denominal adjectives consist of three classes depending on their meaning. a) R e l a t i o n a l adjectives express various kinds of attributes of or relations with the entities denoted by the base nouns. These relations are diverse and cannot be covered completely, for they vary with the noun the adjective modifies, as well as with the context. Cf. moločnyj (← moloko ‘milk’) sup ‘milk soup, soup made of milk’, moločnoe kafe ‘milk bar; lit. milk café’, moločnyj telënok ‘vealer; lit. milk calf’, etc.; lesnoj (← les ‘forest, wood’) domik ‘little house in a forest’, lesnye zveri ‘forest animals’, lesnoj rajon ‘wooded area’, lesnoj plug ‘plough for woodland’, lesnye problemy ‘problems concerning the forest’, etc. The most frequently occurring meanings are m a t e r i a l : kož-anyj ‘leather’ (adj.) (← koža), kirpič-nyj ‘brick, made of bricks’ (← kirpič), bajk-ovyj ‘made of baize’ (← bajka); p l a c e : ulič-nyj ‘street’ (adj.) (← ulica), e.g., uličnaâ palatka ‘street booth’; gorod-skoj ‘town, city’ (adj.) (← gorod), cf. gorodskie vorota ‘city gates’; p u r p o s e : tennis-nyj ‘tennis’ (adj.), e.g., tennisnaâ raketka ‘tennis-racket’; gruz-ovoj ‘freight’ (adj.) (← gruz), cf. gruzovoj avtomobiľ ‘lorry, truck’; p o s s e s s i o n : us-atyj ‘mustached’ (← usy), dupl-istyj ‘hollow, hollowed-out’ (← duplo), âd-ovityj ‘poisonous’ (← âd); s i m i l a r i t y : zme-ist-yj ‘winding; lit. snake-like’ (← zmeâ), e.g., zmeistaâ doroga ‘winding road’, moloč-nyj ‘milky, milk-like’ (← moloko), cf. moločnyj tuman ‘milky fog’. In works on Russian word-formation, the latter are not traditionally regarded as qualitative adjectives, because they do not express an evaluation. b) Q u a l i t a t i v e adjectives, apart from the relational meaning, are used to describe or specify something, for instance, large quantity/good quality, e.g., žir-nyj ‘fat, greasy’

2964

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

(← žir), vkus-nyj ‘tasty’ (← vkus); possessing the features of that which is denoted by the base noun (e.g., intelligent-nyj ‘cultured, educated’ (← intelligent ‘intellectual’ (n.)). c) P o s s e s s i v e adjectives (‘belonging to sb.’), e.g., otc-ov ‘father’s’ (← otec), dâd-in ‘uncle’s’ (← dâdâ), lis-ij ‘of a fox’ (← lisa).

4.4.2. Circumfixation Adjectives of this type convey s p a t i a l (za-les-nyj ‘located beyond the forest; lit. behind/beyond-forest-ADJ’; pri-gorod-nyj ‘suburban; lit. by-town-ADJ’), t e m p o r a l (predpolët-nyj ‘preflight’ (adj.)), and p r i v a t i v e / n e g a t i v e meanings (bez-lošad-nyj ‘horseless, carless; lit. without-horse-ADJ’ ← lošaď; ne-vin-nyj ‘chaste, innocent; lit. notguilt-ADJ’ ← vina).

4.5. Deadjectival adjectives 4.5.1. Prefixation Prefixed adjectives denote: a) Degrees of an attribute: high (arhi-složnyj ‘extremely difficult’; nai-lučšij ‘the best of the best’; super-sovremennyj ‘ultramodern’), moderate (nebez-opasnyj ‘not entirely safe’) or low degree (nedo-razvityj ‘underdeveloped’); b) Negation: ne-vesëlyj ‘quite sad; lit. not-joyful’; anti-gumannyj ‘inhuman’; c) Spatial meanings: vne-zavodskoj ‘outplant’ (adj.); za-polârnyj ‘transpolar’; d) Temporal meanings: poza-prošlyj ‘before last; lit. beyond-past’; e) Miscellaneous, e.g., po-dohodnyj ‘income [tax]; lit. according to-income-ADJ’; proamerikanskij ‘pro-American’; so-vinovnyj ‘correal; lit. co-guilty’.

4.5.2. Suffixation Suffixal deadjectival adjectives may express: a) Degree of an attribute, which may be high (boľš-uŝ-ij ‘extremely large, huge, monstrous’ ← bol’šoj; gluboč-ajš-ij ‘deepest’ ← glubokij; poln-ёhon’k-ij ‘quite full’ ← polnyj), moderately high (slab-enek ‘quite weak’ ← slabyj; molož-av-yj ‘young-looking, youngish’ ← molodoj), or low or subdued (grub-ovat-yj ‘a little rude, rough’ ← grubyj); b) Hypocoristic meaning: molod-en’k-ij (← molodoj ‘young’); c) Possession of or similarity with sth. denoted by the base (relational) adjective: sernistyj ‘sulphurous, containing sulphur’ (← sernyj ‘sulphur’ (adj.)), mučn-istyj ‘containing flour, flour-like’ (← mučnoj ‘flour’ (adj.)); d) Stylistic shades: prostoj ‘simple, simplistic’ and its suffixed substandard counterpart prost-eck-ij ‘simplistic’.

162. Russian

2965

Sometimes suffixation serves the formal adaptation of an indeclinable borrowed adjective, e.g., bež-ev-yj ‘beige’ (← bež ‘id.’).

4.6. Deverbal adjectives 4.6.1. Suffixation Suffixal deverbal adjectives belong to the following categories: a) Active adjectives are represented by examples like dežur-nyj ‘on duty’ (← dežuriť ‘to be on duty’). Adjectives in -l- express the meaning ‘being in a state resulted from the action’, e.g., spe-l-yj ‘ripe’ (← speť ‘to ripe’). Active-modal meanings can be differentiated as follows: ‘favorable for the action’, e.g., lët-nyj ‘flyable, flying’ (← leteť), cf. lëtnaâ pogoda ‘flyable, flying weather’; ‘serving for the action’, e.g., priceľ-nyj ‘aiming, sighting’ (← priceliťsja ‘to aim’), cf. priceľnyj teleskop ‘sighting telescope’; ‘capable of (or willing to perform) the action’: gor-ûč-ij ‘combustible, inflammable’ (← goreť ‘to burn’); rabot-âŝ-ij ‘industrious, hard-working’ (← rabotať ‘to work’); b) Passive adjectives comprise formations such as ssyľ-nyj ‘exiled, banished’ (← ssylať ‘to exile, banish’); var-ënyj ‘boiled, cooked’ (← variť ‘to boil’); kry-tyj ‘tiled, covered, roofed’ (← kryť ‘to cover’). Passive-modal meaning is expressed by adjectives like zavid-nyj ‘enviable’ (← zavideť ‘to envy’); izmenâ-em-yj ‘changeable, variable’ (← izmenâť ‘to change’); čit-abeľn-yj ‘readable, easy, interesting to be read’ (← čitať ‘to read’); lom-k-ij ‘fragile, beakable, easy to break’ (← lomať ‘to break’).

4.6.2. Circumfixation These adjectives may denote qualities, characterized by the result of the action, e.g., zasp-ann-yj ‘sleepy, cloudy with sleep’ (← spať ‘to sleep’), the lack of the action or the lack of an affinity or ability to perform the action, e.g., bez-vylaz-n-yj ‘never leaving the place’ (← vylezať ‘to crawl out’); ne-smolka-em-yj ‘ceaseless’ (← smolkať ‘to grow silent’). A passive-modal meaning (in connection with negation) is expressed by adjectives like ne-pobed-im-yj ‘invincible’ (← pobediť ‘to defeat’).

4.7. Denominal verbs 4.7.1. Suffixation The following categories can be distinguished: a) ‘to be N/behave like N’: stolâr-ničať ‘to work as a carpenter’ (← stolâr ‘carpenter’); b) ‘to become N’: sirot-eť ‘to get orphaned’ (← sirota ‘orphan’); c) ‘to do N’: analiz-irovať ‘to analize’ (← analiz ‘analysis’);

2966

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

d) ‘to do sth. in a manner typical of N (e.g., a place)’: bazar-iť ‘to chat or make noise in a vulgar manner, similar to sounds of a bazaar’ (← bazar); e) ‘to have/exhibit N’: maloduš-estvovať ‘to be faint-hearted’ (← malodušie ‘faintheartedness’); f) ‘to get/achieve N’: baryš-ničať ‘to profiteer’ (← baryšnik ‘profiteer’); g) ‘to produce N/turn sth. into N’: kopn-iť ‘to stack up’ (← kopna ‘stook’); h) ‘to turn into N’: kaleč-iť ‘to cripple, maim’ (← kaleka ‘cripple’); i) ‘to provide with N’: masl-iť ‘to cover with oil or butter’ (← maslo ‘oil, butter’); j) ‘to act with N’: boron-iť ‘to harrow’ (← borona ‘harrow’); k) ‘to place/put into N’: plen-iť ‘to capture, captivate’ (← plen ‘captivity’); l) ‘to remove or separate N’: potroš-iť ‘to eviscerate’ (← potroha ‘giblets’); m) ‘to spend N’: noč-evať ‘to stay overnight’ (← noč’ ‘night’).

4.7.2. Circumfixation Circumfixal verbs (prefixation combined with suffixation) express the following meanings: a) ‘to provide sb./sth. with N/the attributes of N’: za-dym-iť ‘to blacken with smoke’ (← dym ‘smoke’), za-bolot-iť ‘to turn into a swamp’ (← boloto ‘swamp’); raz-zadoriť ‘to enthuse, excite, stir up’ (← zador ‘fervour, ardour’); b) ‘to deprive sb./sth. of N’: obez-žir-iť ‘to degrease’ (← žir ‘grease’); c) ‘to make N’: s-grud-i-t’ ‘to make a heap, pile’ (← gruda ‘heap’); d) ‘to act with N’: s-bolt-iť ‘to bolt’; e) ‘to approach N’: pri-gub-iť ‘to take a little sip; lit. by(near)-lip-SUFF’ (← guba ‘lip’); f) ‘to get covered with N’: za-mš-eť ‘to get covered with moss’ (← moh ‘moss’); g) ‘to be deprived of N’: obes-pamât-eť ‘to lose memory’ (← pamât’ ‘memory’). Suffixation combined with postfixation: a) b) c) d)

‘to be/behave like N’: nevest-iť-sâ ‘to behave like a bride’ (← nevesta ‘bride’); ‘to become N/become similar to N’: kust-iť-sâ ‘to grow like a bush’ (← kust ‘bush’); ‘to get covered with N’: ros-iť-sâ ‘to get covered with dew’ (← rosa ‘dew’); ‘to make N’: luč-iť-sâ ‘to radiate, emanate rays of energy (also figuratively)’ (← luč ‘ray’), and others.

4.8. Deadjectival verbs 4.8.1. Suffixation These verbs may express the following meanings: a) ‘to be A/to be like A’: bel-eť ‘to show (up) white’ (← belyj ‘white’); važn-ičať ‘to show off demonstrating one’s (real or fictitious) importance or status’ (← važnyj ‘important’);

162. Russian

2967

b) ‘to become A’: pročn-eť ‘to harden, become hard, firm (or harder, firmer)’ (← pročnyj ‘hard, firm’); c) ‘to provide with/to make A’: raznoobraz-iť ‘to make sth. (more) diverse’ (← raznoobraznyj ‘diverse’); d) ‘to perform actions characterized by A’: čast-it’ ‘to do, say sth. hurriedly’ (← častyj ‘quick, rapid’).

4.8.2. Circumfixation Circumfixal verbs which combine prefixation with suffixation have the following meanings: a) ‘to become A’: o-poloum-eť ‘to go mad’ (← poloumnyj ‘mad’); b) ‘to provide with/make A’: o-složn-iť ‘to complicate’ (← složnyj ‘complicated’); c) ‘to deprive of A’: ras-sekret-iť ‘to reveal, disclose; lit. de-secret’ (← sekretnyj ‘secret’ (adj.)); d) ‘to surpass sb./sth. in manifesting A’: pere-uprâm-iť ‘to prove to be more stubborn than sb. else’ (← uprâmyj ‘stubborn’). Suffixal-postfixal verbs are represented by the following categories: a) ‘to be A’: skup-iť-sâ ‘to be stingy’ (← skupoj ‘avaricious, stingy’); b) ‘to become A’: truhlâv-iť-sâ ‘to rot’ (← truhlâvyj ‘rotten’). Prefixal-suffixal-postfixal verbs, such as o-smel-iť-sâ ‘to dare’ (← smelyj ‘courageous, bold’), ras-ŝedr-iť-sâ ‘to have a fit of generosity’ (← šedryj ‘generous’), are scarce.

4.9. Deverbal verbs 4.9.1. Prefixation Verbal prefixes express the following meanings: a) Space/direction: podo-jti ‘to walk towards sb./sth.’ (← idti); ot-bežať ‘to run away on a short distance’; razo-slať ‘to send out’; b) Time: za-peť ‘to begin singing’; po-stoât’ ‘to stand for a while’; do-sideť ‘to sit out, till the end of sth.’; c) Different degrees of intensity: vy-beliť ‘to whitewash completely’; iz-zâbnuť ‘to get totally frozen’; pere-sporiť kogo-l. ‘to outargue sb.’; pere-greť ‘to overheat’; podbodriť ‘to cheer up, encourage’; d) Cumulative meaning, including multiple objects or subjects of the action, e.g., o-begať ‘to run about sth. in order to find information or remuneration; lit. to aboutrun’; iz”-ezdiť ‘to travel all over, move through many places’; pere-hvatať ‘to seize or capture everyone around (one after the other)’, pere-boleť ‘to suffer through the illness’ (vse pereboleli grippom ‘everyone had flu once’; pereboleli mnogimi boleznâmi ‘(they) suffered through many illnesses’);

2968

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

e) Acquistion of the object, with subsequent destruction or rendering it useless, e.g., zavoevať ‘to conquer’; is-pisať ‘to use sth. for writing, thereby expending it’; za-vodiť ‘to render sb. winded or exhausted while leading them’; f) Completion or adequacy of the action, e.g., vy-lečiť pf. ‘to cure’; na-pisať pf. ‘to write’; s-delat’ pf. ‘to do’. Most of the base verbs are imperfective; perfective or biaspectual ones occurring rarely. On the contrary, prefixal verbs derived from them are mostly perfective, with prefixes conveying both a derivational meaning and a grammatical one, e.g., delat’ ipf. ‘to do’ → pere-delat’ pf. ‘to do again, this time differently; lit. redo’.

4.9.2. Suffixation Suffixal deverbal verbs contain suffixes such as -nu-, -anu-, -iva- (-va-), -a-, -i-. Verbs with the suffixes -nu- and -anu- belong to the perfective aspect, while the rest are imperfective (with an exception of a small number of verbs with -i-, which may be perfective as well). The suffixes -nu- and -anu- mark the s i n g l e o c c u r r e n c e of the event or process, e.g., du-nu-ť ‘to blow once’, maz-anu-ť ‘to daub or smear sth. with one vigorous stroke’. The suffix -anu- conveys additional shades of meanings such as expressiveness, intensity and abruptness, all verbs in -anu- being substandard and informal. The suffix -iva- marks i t e r a t i v i t y, with both the base verb and the resulting verb belonging to the imperfective aspect, e.g., videť ‘to see’ → vidyvať ‘to see repeatedly’. They are informal or substandard, usually appearing in the past tense, i.e. vidyval ‘(he) repeatedly saw’. By adding this suffix to perfective verbs they are transformed into imperfective ones, e.g., perepisať pf. ‘to rewrite’ → perepis-yva-ť ipf. ‘id.’. Such verbs form aspectual pairs. The suffixes -i- and -a- are c a u s a t i v e , cf. voskresnuť ‘to rise from the dead, resurrect’ → voskres-i-ť ‘to resurrect sb., make sb. rise from the dead’; sesť pf., sideť ipf. ‘to sit’ → saž-a-ť ‘to seat, plant’. The suffixes -i- and -a- express the meaning ‘to do sth. repeatedly or in more than one direction’, e.g., bresti ‘to plod’ → brod-iť ‘to ramble’; bežať ‘to run’ → beg-ať ‘to run up and down’.

4.9.3. Postfixation In works on Slavic word-formation, postfixation is defined as the addition of a derivational morpheme that follows the inflectional ending. Russian postfixal verbs are derived with the reciprocal postfix -sâ, mostly from transitive verbs, cf. myť ‘to wash’ → myťsâ ‘to wash oneself’. They may denote: a) Reciprocity proper: umyvať-sâ ‘to wash one’s hands and face, wash up’; b) Mutual reciprocity: celovať-sâ ‘to kiss each other’; c) Absence of a patient; the action or state of being a potential agent or patient is an inherent characteristic of sb./sth.: sobaka kusaet-sâ ‘the dog bites’ (agent), nitki plohie, rvut-sâ ‘the threads are bad, they get ripped’ (patient);

162. Russian

2969

d) General reciprocity; the action takes place “within” the experiencer, i.e. verbs of this kind denote physical conditions or mental states: serdiť-sâ ‘to be angry’ (← serdiť ‘to make angry’); e) Impersonality, e.g., hočet-sâ ‘one feels a vague desire; lit. [it] wants itself’. Postfixation by -sâ is also one of the ways to denote an action similar to the passive voice, cf. dom stroitsâ rabočimi ‘the house is being constructed by workers’.

4.9.4. Circumfixation Circumfixal (prefixal-suffixal) deverbal verbs may be both perfective and imperfective and express s p a t i a l (ot-blesk-ivať ‘to reflect the light’) and t e m p o r a l meanings (pri-govar-ivať ‘to accompany sth. by talking’ ← govoriť ‘to speak, talk’) and different degrees of i n t e n s i t y (pod-pah-ivať ‘to emit a slight smell’ ← pahnuť ‘to smell’). Perfective verbs of this kind contain various prefixes along with the suffixes -nu-, -i-. They express the meanings of s p a c e , e.g., ot-kus-iť ‘to bite off’, and t i m e , e.g., vsplak-nuť ‘to sob, weep for a little while’, and serve the formation of a s p e c t u a l p a i r s , e.g., vešať ipf. ‘to hang (tr.)’ → po-ves-iť pf. ‘id.’. Prefixal-postfixal verbs are derived primarily from imperfective ones, although there are a few examples derived from perfective verbs, e.g., stupiť pf. ‘to step’ → ras-stupiťsâ pf. ‘to make room’. Such verbs are perfective and intransitive, having the following meanings: a) Spatial: s-bežať-sâ ‘to run to one point from different places, gather’; b) Temporal: ot-voevať-sâ ‘to stop fighting a war, cease fighting’; c) High degree of intensity: u-begať-sâ ‘to be exhausted by running’; reaching a high degree of intensity, e.g., raz-goreť-sâ ‘to flare up, start burning high or steadily’; ob”-esť-sâ ‘to feel bloated after a heavy meal’ (← esť ‘to eat’); d) Abrupt or sudden start of the action: vz-ahať-sâ ‘to start gasping and saying “Aah”’; e) Reaching a result: do-stučať-sâ ‘to elicit a response by knocking (at the door, etc.) for a long time’; f) Low intensity of an action aimed at relaxation or pleasure: pro-gulâť-sâ ‘to take a walk’. Some other meanings may be illustrated by the verbs pri-slušať-sâ ‘to listen carefully, to strain one’s ears in order to hear sb./sth.’; pri-nûhať-sâ ‘to get used to a certain scent while smelling it’; ot-šutiť-sâ ‘to evade a serious answer to a question by telling a joke’; s-rabotať-sâ ‘to reach accord and understanding while cooperating with sb.’; v-dumaťsâ ‘to think about sth. carefully, to go into the question’; o-govoriť-sâ ‘to make a slip of the tongue’ (← govoriť ‘to speak, talk’), etc. There is only one type of prefixal-suffixal-postfixal verbs in Russian, meaning ‘to do sth. denoted by the base verb in turn’, e.g., šutiť ‘to joke’ → pere-šuč-ivať-sâ ‘to banter, chaff with each other’.

2970

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.10. Derivation of adverbs 4.10.1. Prefixation Prefixal adverbs express the following meanings: a) Negation: ne-nadolgo ‘not for long’; b) Intensification: nai-bolee ‘most’; pre-bol’no ‘painful indeed’; na-strogo ‘very strictly’; c) Time: za-svetlo ‘while it is still daytime; lit. while light’, do-nyne ‘up to this day’, po-nyne ‘id.’; ot-nyne ‘from now on’; d) Space: do-tuda ‘up to there, thus far’, na-skvoz’ ‘through (and through), throughly’, ot-tuda ‘from there’, po-vsûdu ‘everywhere’; e) Stylistic shades, e.g., vrâd li ‘hardly ever’ and its substandard variant na-vrâd li.

4.10.2. Suffixation Denominal adverbs with suffixes that are homonyms of instrumental case markers (inflections) denote t i m e (let-om ‘in summer’) and m a n n e r (šag-om ‘on foot’; petuškom ‘(to walk) like a cockerel’). Deadjectival and deverbal adverbs denote m a n n e r , e.g., bystr-o ‘quickly’; tvorčesk-i ‘in a creative way’; šut-â ‘easily, without turning a hair; lit. joking’ (← šutiť ‘to joke’); toč-mâ ‘in a grinding way’ (← točiť ‘to grind’); polz-kom ‘in a crouching manner, on all fours’ (← polzti ‘to creep, crawl’). Deadverbial adverbs denote a d e g r e e of an attribute (slab-ovato ‘rather badly’, čast-en’ko ‘quite often’) or additional e x p r e s s i v e n e s s /e v a l u a t i o n (râd-kom ‘(lining up) in a little row’).

4.10.3. Circumfixation Denominal adverbs express: a) Manner: v-pravd-u ‘indeed; lit. in truth’; na-iznank-u ‘inside out’; po-istin-e ‘truly; lit. by the truth’; b) Space: na-vstreč-u ‘heading towards sth.; lit. on meeting’; s-verh-u ‘from above’, s-pered-i ‘in front of’; c) Time: v-načal-e ‘in the beginning’; po-utr-u ‘in the morning’. Deadjectival adverbs denote: a) Manner: po-nov-omu ‘anew’; manner + intensity: do-bel-a ‘(wiping, washing sth.) till it turns white’; na-suh-o ‘(to wipe sth.) dry’; b) Space/direction: v-prav-o ‘rightwards’; c) Time/duration: iz-davn-a ‘from time immemorial, at all times’; s-molod-u ‘from one’s youth; lit. since-young’.

162. Russian

2971

Deverbal adverbs designate attributes somehow related to the actions denoted by the base verbs, e.g., v-dogon-ku ‘in pursuit of’ (← dognať/dogoniť ‘to catch up (with)’); na-raspaš-ku ‘wide open, frank’ (← raspahnuť ‘to open wide’).

5. Conversion In the grammatical tradition of Russian, certain phenomenona which are referred to as conversion in, for instance, the Germanic languages are considered zero affixation and zero nominalization, i.e. a transition of lexical units between word classes or wordformation types with no formally expressed derivational affixes involved. (Though sometimes seen as a class of conversion, the formation of denominal and deadjectival verbs is regarded as suffixation, see sections 4.7, 4.8.)

5.1. Nouns 5.1.1. Zero suffixation Denominal nouns with zero suffixes convey the following meanings: F e m a l e p e r s o n (formally, gender is expressed by the inflection -a), e.g., rab ‘slave’ → rab-a ‘female slave’, Aleksandr → Aleksandr-a; H u m a n b e i n g or a n i m a l (reference to habitat or work), e.g., riznica ‘sacristy, vestry’ → riznič-ij ‘sacristan’ (with adjectival inflection); C o l l e c t i v e n e s s , e.g., cifra ‘figure’ → cifir’ ‘figures (obsolete, ironical)’. Deadjectival nouns with zero suffixes convey the meanings of: A b s t r a c t n o u n s (udaloj ‘valorous, reckless’ → udaľ ‘reckless valor’, intimnyj ‘intimate’ → intim ‘intimate or casual relationships’, dobryj ‘good, kind-hearted’ → dobro ‘good (n.)’); B e a r e r o f a n a t t r i b u t e (personal and non-personal), e.g., intellektuaľnyj ‘intellectual, intelligent’ → intellektual ‘(an) intellectual, person of keen intellect’, suhoj ‘dry’ → suša ‘dry land, firm ground’; this type includes place names, e.g., komsomoľskij ‘belonging to the Young Communist League (Komsomol)’ → Komsomoľsk (toponym). Deverbal nouns with zero suffixes belong to the following categories: A c t i o n n o u n s : zamenâť ‘to replace’ → zamena ‘replacement’, drožať ‘to tremble, shake, quake’ → drož’ ‘tremor, shake, quake’, vybirať ‘to choose, elect’ → vybory ‘elections’; A g e n t n o u n s , r e s u l t n o u n s , and others: balaguriť ‘to jest, crack jokes’ → balagur ‘jokester’, obžiraťsâ ‘to overeat’ → obžora ‘glutton’, poslať ‘to send’ → posol ‘ambassador’; okovať ‘to enchain, enfetter’ → okovy ‘fetters, shackles’, tesať ‘to chip (wood)’ → tёs ‘thin planks’, ryť ‘to dig’ → rov ‘ditch, trench, moat’, etc.

5.1.2. Zero suffixation combined with prefixation There are few nouns of this type (prefix + stem + zero suffix) whose unprefixed part does not exist as independent noun, cf. the following examples:

2972

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Denominal nouns: tolk ‘sense, use’ → bes-toloč’ ‘mess, confusion, dimwit; lit. without-sense-0̸’ (+ alternation k/č), lëd ‘ice’ → na-leď ‘ice blister; lit. on-ice-0̸’ (+ alternation d/d’). Deadjectival nouns denote a not completely manifested attribute, e.g., sedoj ‘greyhaired’ → pro-seď ‘greyish hair, pepper-and-salt hair; lit. through-grey-0̸’ (+ alternation d/ď). Deverbal nouns may denote a person (ne-dotrog-a ‘touch-me-not; lit. no-touch-INFL’), a result of an action (doiť ‘to milk’ → u-doj ‘milk yield’), a single act (zabegať ‘to run’ → zabeg ‘race, round’).

5.1.3. Zero suffixation combined with composition Compounds with a verbal head + zero suffix denote a b s t r a c t n o u n s : sen-o-kos ‘haymaking’, krug-o-verť ‘whirl, constant flow (of events); lit. round-whirl’; p e r s o n a l n o u n s : knig-o-lûb ‘avid reader; lit. book-lover’, odn-o-lûb ‘constant lover; lit. onelover’, gor-e-myka ‘no-hoper’ (← gore mykať (idiom.) ‘to lead a dog’s life’); i n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : sam-o-kat ‘kick scooter; lit. self-roller’. In some works on Russian word-formation, complex nouns such as tâžel-o-ves ‘heavyweight’, os’m-i-nog/vos’m-i-nog ‘octopus; lit. eight-leg’, are not regarded as exocentric compounds, but as the result of zero suffixation combined with composition (cf. analogous words containing a formally expressed suffix, as, e.g., mnog-o-nož-k-a ‘multiped; lit. much-leg-SUFF-INFL’).

5.1.4. Nominalization of adjectives Nominalized adjectives, i.e. nouns of adjectival declension, convey the following meanings: a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

Abstract noun: novoe ‘novelty; lit. [the] new’; Person: boľnoj ‘patient; lit. ill’; Place: priëmnaâ ‘waiting room, reception’; Part of the whole: pâtaâ ‘a fifth’; Type of clothes: štatskoe ‘plain clothes; lit. civil’; Collective nouns: s”estnoe ‘eatables’; Units of biological taxonomy, e.g., bobovye ‘Fabaceae; lit. fabaceous, leguminous’, sumčatye ‘marsupials; lit. pouched’; h) Names of settlements, e.g., Otradnoe lit. ‘pleasant, gratifying’; i) Remuneration, tolls and fees, e.g., otstupnoe ‘compensation for termination of contract’ (N ← A ← N otstup ‘withdrawal’), sutočnye ‘payment per diem’ (N ← A ← N sutki ‘day (and night), 24 hours’). Nominalized participles have the following meanings: a) Abstract noun: proishodâŝee ‘current events; lit. occurring, ongoing’; b) Person: upravlâûŝij ‘manager, adminstrator; lit. managing’.

162. Russian

2973

5.2. Adjectives Denominal adjectives with a zero suffix convey the meanings ‘made of, consisting of’ (e.g., zoloto ‘gold’ → zolot-oj ‘golden’), and ‘belonging to’ (otec ‘father’ → otč-ij ‘paternal, father’s’), cf. section 4.4.1. Adjectives with a zero suffix can be also derived from the comparative degree of adverbs, retaining the meaning of comparison, e.g., men’še ‘smaller, fewer, less (adv.)’ → men’š-ij ‘smaller, lesser (adj.)’. Deverbal adjectives express the meaning ‘sb./sth. characterized by the action’, e.g., priezžať ‘to arrive (by train, air, car)’ → priezž-ij ‘newcomer, visitor’. If motivated by cardinal numerals, the adjectives express the meaning of ordinal adjectives (often regarded as numerals), e.g., pâť ‘five’ → pât-yj ‘fifth’. Zero suffixation of adjectives can be combined with prefixation (noga ‘foot, leg’ → bez-nog-ij ‘legless’) or with composition (cf. bel-o-zub-yj ‘white-toothed’, pât-i-pal-yj ‘five-fingered, five-toed’, gorb-o-nos-yj ‘hawk-nosed; lit. hump-nosed’). Adjectival compounds whose heads are ordinal adjectives denote the degree of increase or iteration, e.g., drugoj ‘other, second’ → sam-drug ‘twice, both’. As an example of deverbal adjectival compounds with zero suffix may serve mal-o-ezž-ij ‘little-used (path); lit. little-driven’.

5.3. Adverbs and predicative adverbs Zero suffixation is found in the predicative adverb žaľ ‘it’s a pity’ (← žaleť ‘to feel pity’). Zero suffixation combined with prefixation is found in d e n o m i n a l adverbs with the meanings a) direction toward sth., e.g., niz ‘downward direction’ → v-niz ‘down, downwards’, verh ‘upward direction’ → na-verh ‘up, upwards’; b) action accompanied by pushing or hitting sb.’s part of the body specified by the stem, e.g., šeâ ‘neck’ → v-za-šej ‘rudely driving sb. away while hitting his neck’; c) manner, e.g., konec ‘end’ → v-konec ‘totally, completely; lit. in-end’; in d e a d j e c t i v a l adverbs of manner, e.g., kosoj ‘slant’ → v-kos’ ‘aslant’; and in d e v e r b a l adverbs, e.g., skakať ‘to gallop’ → v-skač ‘at a gallop’, rashvatať ‘to snap sth. up’ → na-rashvat ‘greedily; (to buy, sell, take) like hot cakes’, provernuť ‘to hustle through sth.’ → ne-v-provorot ‘(to have) a full plate of work; lit. not-in-hustling through’.

6. Backformation This strategy is based on omitting morphemes (suffixes, prefixes or the reciprocal postfix) and clipping stems (including heads of compounds). A resulting lexeme looks like a missing link that did not appear in the process of regular word-formation, its stem lacking a number of phonemes in the initial or final position. In Russian, backformation is common in occasional words. One of the means of backformation is desuffixation, found only in denominal nouns. The most frequently clipped suffix is -k(a). This may be found in oral communication

2974

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

and in characters’ speech patterns in works of fiction, e.g., puha ‘large cannon’ (← puška ‘cannon’), syroega ‘huge russule’ (← syroežka ‘russule’), lâguš ‘male frog’ and lâguha ‘big frog’ (← lâguška ‘frog’), pivnuha ‘beerhouse’ (← pivnuška ← pivnaâ ‘beerhouse, bar’). Words such as puha and syroega are perceived as derivatives of puška and syroežka because of their novelty, occasional character, and stylistic markedness. Should they lose these properties, they would become original lexemes, while puška and syroežka would be widely regarded as derivatives. In fact, this is exactly what happened to the word zont ‘umbrella, parasol’. Zontik ‘little umbrella’ was initially a generic term borrowed from (obsolete) Dutch zonnedeck ‘sun-deck’ (cf. obsolete R. zonnedek). New (occasional) words may be formed by means of deprefixation and depostfixation, i.e. by clipping the reciprocal postfix -sâ. The former results in occasional lexemes derived from words of the same word classes, namely verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. This kind of clipping is used to coin antonyms, e.g., uklûžij ‘not awkward’ (← neuklûžij ‘clumsy, awkward’). Besides, it may lead to the formation of imperfective verbs from perfective ones, e.g., coll. šlâpiť (← prošlâpiť ‘to miss the opportunity’). Depostfixation results in deriving transitive verbs from intransitive ones. Those verbs are generally causative, cf. razgovoriťsâ ‘to fall into talk’ and razgovoriť (kogo-l.) ‘to get sb. to talk’.

7. Reduplication Reduplication is common in Russian informal speech where it serves expressive purposes, as well as in baby-talk. It may be radical or affixal. The kind of reduplication, in which the entire word is iterated, is known as word repetition. Reduplication may be identical, nearly identical, and non-identical. Identical radical reduplication includes: a) Interjections and onomatopoeic expressions; many of those are extensively used in informal talk (hi-hi! ‘tee-hee’, ha-ha!, ku-ku! ‘cuckoo, peek-a-boo’, bi-bi! ‘honk honk’, gav-gav! ‘bow-wow’, nâm-nâm! ‘yum yum’); b) Notional words with reduplicated radical components and diverse affixes, e.g., adverbs: davnym-davno ‘once upon a time’, krepko-nakrepko ‘very firmly’; adjectives: gustoj-pregustoj ‘very dense’, malo-maľski ‘somewhat, in the slightest degree’. Examples of nearly identical radical reduplication are: fokus-pokus ‘hocus-pocus’, štučkidrûčki ‘stunts, shady dealings’, figli-migli ‘tricks, shticks’, bim-bam ‘bang-bang’. Non-identical affixal reduplication stands for synonymous, though formally different affixes appearing one after another, e.g., the diminutive/hypocoristic suffixes -oč-, -k- in vedëročko ‘nice little bucket, pail’ (← vedro) and polânočka ‘lovely little glade’ (← polâna) and thereby expressing intensification as other types of reduplication, cf. the examples to follow. Identical word repetition, e.g., belyj-belyj ‘very white’, tiho-tiho ‘very quietly’, šëlšël ‘was walking by (for a long while)’ may be included into word-formation only if the quoted examples are seen as a peculiar kind of compounds.

162. Russian

2975

Non-identical word repetition, i.e. iteration of formally different synonyms, for instance, puť-doroga ‘way, pathway, track; lit. way-road’, druz’â-tovariŝi ‘cronies; lit. friends-comrades’, does not belong to the field of word-formation, but is regarded as a topic of the syntax of word-combinations.

8. Blending A blend has a cluster of phonemes shared by the original lexemes from which it was formed. In Russian, blending may refer to two occasional types of word-formation: a) Pure, or interlexical, blending: The two lexemes that are blended share a certain segment of phonemes, cf. kamazonki ‘women working at the Kama Automobile plant’ ← Kamaz (‘automobile plant and a brand of heavy trucks’) + amazonki ‘Amazons’ sharing -amaz-, èruditâtko ← èrudit ‘erudite’ + ditâtko ‘child, kid’ (often used ironically) sharing -dit-, katastrojka ‘the catastrophe of Perestroika’ (← katastrofa + perestrojka), beruši ‘ear plugs’ (← beregi uši ‘keep (your) ears safe’). b) Mixed blending, or interlexical blending combined with clipping (see section 9): In this type, the stem of one, or sometimes both, of the blended lexemes is omitted (clipped); nevertheless, a string of phonemes is shared by both of the original parts. For instance, the word steklovica is a blend of Steklov (a surname) and peredovica ‘editorial’. The latter is clipped, leaving only -ovica; the suffix -ov- is shared with the proper noun, cf. Tak postupal Ûrij Mihajlovič Steklov […] On predpočital vmesto podobnyh nikčëmnyh peredovic staviť neskoľko konkretnyh zametok. Oni tak i nazyvalis’ − ‘steklovicy’. [That is what Ûrij Mihajlovič Steklov did […] He preferred placing several concrete articles instead of such useless editorials. That’s why they have been named ‘steklovicy’.] (А. Аdžubej). Cf. also lgavda ‘lies (apparently trying to pass for the truth)’ ← lgať ‘to tell lies’ + pravda ‘truth’) (ascribed to the poet Velimir Khlebnikov).

9. Clipping Clipping, also known as non-morphemic clipping or abbreviation-based clipping in the linguistic tradition of Russian differs from backformation in that it is not a morpheme but a semantically insignificant element that gets clipped. Clipping disregards the morphemic structure of a given word. A missing link of the derivational chain is not reconstructed. It is final elements of stems that tend to be clipped (spec ← specialist ‘specialist’, foks ← fokstrot ‘foxtrot’), although sometimes initial phonemes may be omitted, too (lâsy, a unique component of the idiom lâsy točiť ‘to chat light-heartedly; lit. to sharpen lâsy’ ← balâsy ‘rail-posts, balusters’); proper names such as Rita ← Margarita, Tina ← Valentina, Riška ← Iriška (← Irina), or mid position (fiziâ ← fizionomiâ ‘mug, physiognomy’, tubik ← tuberkulëznik ‘person suffering from tuberculosis’, alik ← alkogolik ‘alcoholic’; all colloquial or occasional).

2976

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

10. Word-creation Apart from terminology, word-creation, i.e. artificial words deliberately (not spontaneously) coined by certain authors is scarce in Russian (cf. Grigor’ev 1986 and others on word-creation in Russian poetry). Traditionally, the term word-creation is not restricted to nonce-words, but also includes the formation and introduction of motivated words by famous writers who have contributed to the enrichment of the Russian vocabulary. Some widespread words were presumably coined by writers; the plausibility of such presumptions may vary. For instance, buduŝnosť (← buduŝij ‘future, to come (adj.)’) as an attempt to replace the Old Church Slavonic borrowing grâduŝee ‘future, things to come’, promyšlennosť ‘industry’ (← promysel ‘craft, trade, line of work, e.g., of a fisherman or artisan’), vlûblënnosť ‘infatuation’ (← vlûblënnyj (past particple) ‘in love’), čelovečnosť ‘humanness’ (← čelovečnyj ‘humane’), and obŝepoleznyj ‘suitable for everyone; lit. general(ly)-useful, suitable’, dostižimyj ‘achievable’ were created (although on the basis of existing words) by Nikolaj M. Karamzin and his school of thought (Vinogradov 1940: 49 f., Vinogradov 1999: 574 f.); nigilist ‘nihilist’ by Ivan S. Turgenev (Vinogradov 1999: 23), intelligenciâ ‘intelligentsia’ by Petr D. Boborykin (Vinogradov 1999: 229), stuševaťsâ ‘to melt into the background, to turn shy; lit. to ink out’ (← tuš’) by Fedor M. Dostoevskij, oblomovŝina ‘stagnation, apathy similar to that of Oblomov’s (the hero of the eponymous novel)’ by Ivan A. Goncharov, etc. Cases of word-creation can be found in various domains of the language and may belong to various procedures and types of word-formation described above, cf.: zapadnizm ‘Westernism’ (← zapadnyj ‘Western’), ziâûŝie vysoty ‘gaping heights’ (← ziâûŝaâ dyra ‘gaping hole’ + the Soviet cliché siâûŝie vysoty ‘shining heights’) coined by Аleksandr А. Zinov’ev; nofelet (telefon ‘telephone’ in reverse; from the catchphrase in the title of Gde nahoditsâ nofelet? [Could you tell me where the nofelet is?], a Soviet comedy film). They also include medical terms or names of remedies, such as Antihrap ‘a brand of snoring remedies; lit. antisnore’, Negrustin ‘a brand of antidepressants’ (← ne grusti ‘do not feel sad, cheer up’) (Zemskaâ 2007: 190), Dlânos ‘a brand of nose sprays’ (← dlâ nosa ‘for the nose’), etc. as well as IT terminology and slang, e.g., proapgrejdit’ ‘to upgrade’, naguglit’ ‘to google’, infa ‘info’, homâk ‘home page; lit. hamster’ (a pun) (Kokorina 2010: 280, 284, 286).

11. References Ânko-Trinickaâ, Nadiâ A. 1962 Vozvratnye glagoly v sovremennom russkom âzyke. Moskva: Nauka. Blinova, Oľga I. 2010 Âvlenie motivacii slov. Leksikologičeskij aspekt. Moskva: Librokom. Boduèn de Kurtenè, Ivan А. [Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan] 1963 [1912] Ob otnošenii russkogo pis’ma k russkomu âzyku. In: Ivan A. Boduèn de Kurtenè, Izbrannye trudy po obŝemu âzykoznaniû. Vol. 2, 209−235. Moskva: Izdateľstvo АN SSSR. Dokulil, Miloš 1962 Tvoření slov v češtině. Vol. 1: Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd.

162. Russian

2977

Ermakova, Oľga P. 1984 Leksičeskie značeniâ proizvodnyh slov v russkov âzyke. Moskva: Russkij âzyk. Ermakova, Oľga P. and Elena A. Zemskaâ 1991 K utočneniû otnošenij slovoobrazovateľnoj proizvodnosti. Russian Linguistics 15(2): 105−116. Grammatika russkogo âzyka. Vol. 1. 1952 Moskva: Izdateľstvo АN SSSR. Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo âzyka 1970 Moskva: Nauka. Grigor’ev, Viktor P. 1986 Slovotvorčestvo i smežnye problemy âzyka poèta. Moskva: Nauka. Kakorina, Elena V. 2010 Âzyk internet-kommunikacii. In: Leonid P. Krysin (ed.), Sovremennyj russkij âzyk. Sistema − norma − uzus, 273−340. Moskva: Âzyki slavânskoj kuľtury. Krongauz, Maksim A. 1998 Pristavki i glagoly v russkom âzyke. Semantičeskaâ grammatika. Moskva: Âzyki russkoj kuľtury. Kruševskij, Nikolaj V. [Kruszewski, Mikołaj] 1883 Očerk nauki o âzyke. In: Izvestiâ i učënye zapiski Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta 19. (Appendix 148 pp.). Kubrâkova, Elena S. 1999 Kognitivnye aspekty slovoobrazovaniâ i svâzannye s nimi pravila inferencii (semantičeskogo vyvoda). In: Reinhard Ibler and Renate Belentschikow (eds.), Novye puti izučeniâ slovoobrazovaniâ slavânskih âzykov, 23−36. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Kubrâkova, Elena S. 2004 Âzyk i znanie. Moskva: Âzyki slavânskoj kuľtury. Levašov, Evgenij A. (ed.) 1997 Novye slova i značeniâ. Slovar’-spravočnik po materialam pressy i literatury 80-h godov. Sankt Peterburg: Dmitrij Bulanin. Lopatin, Vladimir V. 1977 Russkaâ slovoobrazovateľnaâ morfemika. Moskva: Nauka. Lopatin, Vladimir V. 2007 Mnogogrannoe russkoe slovo. Moskva: Azbukovnik. Miloslavskij, Igor’ G. 1980 Voprosy slovoobrazovateľnogo sinteza. Moskva: MGU. Manučarân, Ruben S. 1981 Slovoobrazovateľnye značeniâ i formy v russkom i armânskom âzykah. Erevan: Lujs. Radwańska Williams, Joanna 1993 A Paradigm Lost. The Linguistic Theory of Mikołaj Kruszewski. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Russkaâ grammatika. Vol. 1. 1980 Moskva: Nauka. Panov, Mihail V. 1968 Slovoobrazovanie sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo âzyka. Moskva: Nauka. Šanskij, Nikolaj M. 1959 Očerki po russkomu slovoobrazovaniû i leksikologii. Moskva: Učpedgiz. Širšov, Ivan А. 2004 Tolkovyj slovoobrazovateľnyj slovar’ russkogo âzyka. Moskva: АST; Аstreľ; Russkie slovari; Ermak. Šmelev, Dmitrij N. (ed.) 1981 Sposoby nominacii v sovremennom russkom âzyke. Moskva: Nauka.

2978

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Tihonov, Аleksej N. 1985 Slovoobrazovateľnyj slovar’ russkogo âzyka. Moskva: Russkij âzyk. Uluhanov, Igor’ S. 1977 Slovoobrazovateľnaâ semantika v russkom âzyke i principy ee opisaniâ. Moskva: Nauka. Uluhanov, Igor’ S. 2005 Motivaciâ v slovoobrazovateľnoj sisteme russkogo âzyka. Moskva: Аzbukovnik. Uluhanov, Igor’ S. 2012 Slovoobrazovanie. Morfonologiâ. Leksikologiâ. Moskva: Logos. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1938 Sovremennyj russkij âzyk. Moskva: Učpedgiz. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1947 Russkij âzyk. Grammatičeskoe učenie o slove. Moskva: Učpedgiz. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1952 Sovremennyj russkij âzyk. Morfologiâ. Moskva: Izdateľstvo MGU. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1975a [1951] Voprosy sovremennogo russkogo slovoobrazovaniâ. In: Viktor V. Vinogradov, Izbrannye trudy. Issledovaniâ po russkoj grammatike, 155−165. Moskva: Nauka. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1975b [1952] Slovoobrazovanie v ego otnošenii k grammatike i leksikologii (Na materiale russkogo i rodstvennyh âzykov). In: Viktor V. Vinogradov, Izbrannye trudy. Issledovaniâ po russkoj grammatike, 166−220. Moskva: Nauka. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1978 [1940] Osnovnye ètapy istorii russkogo âzyka. In: Vikor V. Vinogradov, Izbrannye trudy. Istoriâ russkogo literaturnogo âzyka, 10−64. Moskva: Nauka. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1999 Istoriâ slov. Moskva: IRÂ im. V. V. Vinogradova. Vinogradova, Valentina N. 1992 Stilistika russkogo slovoobrazovaniâ. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Vinokur, Grigorij O. 1959 [1946] Zametki po russkomu slovoobrazovaniû. In: Grigorij O. Vinokur, Izbrannye raboty po russkomu âzyku, 419−442. Moskva: Učpedgiz. Zemskaâ, Elena А. 1973 Sovremennyj russkij âzyk. Slovoobrazovanie. Moskva: Prosveŝenie. Zemskaâ, Elena А. 1992 Slovoobrazovanie kak deâteľnosť. Moskva: Nauka. Zemskaâ, Elena A. (ed.) 1996 Russkij âzyk konca XX stoletiâ (1985−1995). Moskva: Âzyki russkoj kuľtury. Zemskaâ, Elena А. 2007 Igrovoe slovoobrazovanie. In: Elena A. Zemskaâ and Mariâ L. Kalenčuk (eds.), Âzyk v dviženii. K 70-letiû L. P. Krysina, 186−193. Moskva: Âzyki slavânskoj kuľtury. Zemskaâ, Elena A., Margarita V. Kitajgorodskaâ and Evgenij N. Širâev 1981 Russkaâ razgovornaâ reč’. Obŝie voprosy. Slovoobrazovanie. Sintaksis. Moskva: Nauka.

Igor’ S. Uluhanov, Moscow (Russia)

163. Slovene

2979

163. Slovene 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Minor processes of word-formation Conclusion References

Abstract The article contains an overview of the basic word-formation characteristics of Slovene, i.e. its word-formation categories and meanings, and the most productive affixes. Slovene has a rich inventory of word-formation affixes. Its core word-formation procedures are derivation and composition. Typical affixes and semantic groups of complex words are illustrated with examples from the formation of individual parts of speech. Other wordformation processes such as backformation, reduplication, blending, clipping and wordcreation are mentioned as non-systemic formation, partly resulting in ad-hoc formations.

1. Introduction Slovene is a South Slavic language spoken by approximately 2.5 million speakers worldwide, the majority of whom live in Slovenia (83.1 % or about 2 million inhabitants). Since 2004 it has been one of the 23 official languages of the European Union. The earliest known examples of a distinct Slovene dialect go back to the Brižinski spomeniki [Freising Monuments] before the year 1000. They belong to the oldest surviving manuscripts in a Slavic language. Standard Slovene developed in the second half of the 16th century thanks to the works of Slovene Protestant authors and translators of the Bible (e.g., Primož Trubar, Jurij Dalmatin), and Adam Bohorič, the author of the first Slovene grammar that also contains a description of word-formation characteristics (Bohorič 1584). Throughout the 17th century, the grammar by Bohorič was reprinted or used as a basis for other grammar books. The chapter on word-formation in Pohlin’s grammar (Pohlin 1783 [1768]) was also influenced by Bohorič. Many grammatical descriptions of Slovene were written in the 19th century. The metalanguage used was German (Dajnko 1824; Metelko 1825) or Slovene (Vodnik 1811). The descriptions of the word-formation system of Slovene from the 19th century are based on two orientations (Vidovič Muha 1988: 33− 50). The first was Slovene-German contrastive normativity, i.e. the leading grammarians Vodnik (1811), Dajnko (1824), and Metelko (1825) treated the characteristics of Slovene complex words by contrasting them with German and basing their findings on the systematization in Slovene grammars and similar works. The second orientation is based on the

2980

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

morphological-semantic (analytical) method. Miklošič (Miklosich 1875) used a Slaviccomparative approach in his examination of complex words, focusing on the morphological and semantic properties of the motivating word. In the middle of the 20th century Bajec (1950, 1952, 1959) wrote monographic descriptions of complex words in modern Slovene, based on extensive material. Studies that made use of syntactic rules in the description of word-formation, in particular of composition, started to appear as early as in the 19th century (Perušek 1890: 3−42) and continued into the 20th century, as, for instance, in grammar books by Breznik (1934 [1916]) and in his treatise on compounds (Breznik 1944: 55−76). The syntacticsemantic approach to Slovene word-formation became fully established in the works of the two leading Slovene linguists, Jože Toporišič and Ada Vidovič Muha. Toporišič presented his theory in an article on word-formation theory (Toporišič 1976) and elaborated on it in all subsequent publications of his book Slovenska slovnica [Slovene Grammar] (Toporišič 1976−2004). Vidovič Muha presented a detailed study of compounds in her monographs Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloženk [Slovene Syntactic Word-Formation in the Case of Compounds] (1988) and Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje [Slovene Syntactic Word-Formation] (2011) that treated typological properties of the syntax of nominal, adjectival and verbal word-formation. In the period between 1990 and 2011, several monographs were published that presented various fields of Slovene word-formation: these were an analysis of complex words taken from the material of Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika [Dictionary of the Slovene Standard Language] (Stramljič Breznik 1999: 13−243), an experimental dictionary of word families (Stramljič Breznik 2004), a selection of theoretical studies (Toporišič 2006: 131−280), an analysis of complex words in various dictionaries and texts (Stramljič Breznik 2010). One monograph includes a word-formation analysis of Slovene company names (Gložančev 2000), another one is dedicated to word-formation in the works of Slovene Protestant writers (Merše 2009). In the last decade there have been numerous word-formation studies (cf. Stramljič Breznik 2011) focusing on theoretical and practical aspects of modern word-formation and the use of the national reference corpus FidaPLUS.

2. General overview Suffixation is the most productive word-formation procedure. The word-formation system of Slovene includes more than 300 suffixes: 236 for nouns, 70 for adjectives, and 15 for verbs (Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 142−234). Multifunctional and hence most productive nominal affixes are -ec, -0̸ (zero suffix), -ek, -ež for masculine derivatives; -ica, -a and -ka for female, and -(s)tvo, -(a/e/i)lo, and -o for neuter. In the formation of adjectives, the most productive suffixes are -en, -ski, and -ast. The most frequent suffixes of verbal word-formation are -ati, -iti, -(e/o)vati. Prefixation, including foreign prefixes, comprises 14 nominal, four adjectival, 20 both nominal and adjectival, and around 40 verbal prefixes (cf. sections 4.1−4.3). At the boundary of the base and the affix, there can be different phonemic changes, which are systemically predictable and well preserved in Slovene. According to Toporišič (1976−2004, 4th ed.: 151−154), these are palatalization (nog- + -ica > nož-ica ‘little

163. Slovene

2981

foot, leg’; non-palatalized variant nog-ica), iotation (duh- + -ja > duša ‘soul’), assimilation, frequently accompanied by palatalization or iotation (tolst- + -jak > *tolsč-ak > tolšč-ak ‘a type of succulent plant’), dissimilation (bedak- + -ski > *bedač-ski > *bedačški > bedaš-ki ‘stupid’), metathesis (orati > ra-lo ‘plough’), apophony (biti > boj-0̸ ‘fight’), transformation of o > e after the consonants j, c, č, ž, š (stric- + -ov > strič-ev ‘uncle’s’), and truncation (bogat- + -stvo > boga-stvo ‘wealth’). The main word-formation procedures are 1. suffixation (e.g., misl-ec ‘think-er’ and derivatives from a prepositional phrases, e.g., brez-dom-ec ‘homeless man; lit. withouthouse-PERS’), 2. prefixation (pod-oficir ‘deputy officer; lit. under-officer’) (see section 4), and 3. composition (mainly nominal and adjectival) (see section 3). There are several subcategories of compounds according to the relation between the roots and the type of the affix: a) determinative interfixed-suffixed (del-o-vod-ja ‘supervisor; lit. work-o-leadAGENT’), and determinative interfixed (avt-o-cesta ‘high way; lit. car-o-way’), b) copulative interfixed-suffixed (balt-o-slovan-ski ‘Balto-Slavic’), and copulative interfixed (črno-bel ‘black and white’). Juxtaposed compounds (mergers of multi-word sequences) are excluded from the systemical procedures (see 1–3 above) due to the unpredictable number and form of their constituents, e.g., N+Pron (očenaš ‘Our Father’ ← oče ‘fatherVOC’ + naš ‘our’), Adv+A (posiliživ ‘barely alive; lit. by force alive’ ← po sili živ), V+Adv (nepridiprav ‘ne’er-do-well; lit. not-come-right’), Num+Num (enaintrideset ‘thirty-one; lit. one and thirty’), Prep+Pron (nato ‘then; lit. on this’), and verb forms (morebiti ‘maybe’). As has been mentioned above, the description of the semantic categories of complex words in Slovene originated in the works of Toporišič and Vidovič Muha. Toporišič (1976−2004, 3rd ed.; 1990) associated the semantics of word-formation with the meanings of the equivalent elements in a sentential base. The subject is correlated with two semantic categories: a) animate referents, e.g., agent (mislec ‘thinker’ ← misliti ‘to think’), bearer of a property (suhec ‘skinny person’ ← suh ‘thin’), and performer of an activity (dežnikar ‘producer of umbrellas’ ← dežnik ‘umbrella’), and b) inanimate referents. The predicate is correlated with the meaning of action, but also with an adjectival or nominal property, etc. The “word-formation algorithm” (Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 156) is described as a sequence of stages from the (syntactic) word-formation base, to the assignment of parts of the base to affixes and stems and, finally, the arrangement of morphemes, including the implementation of phonemic changes and accentuation. Vidovič Muha (1988: 10−32), adopting the Polish word-formation theory, formalized the process of word-formation by taking into account the grammatical relations in the syntactic base and showing their transformational properties in the constituents of the complex word (Vidovič Muha 1988: 16; 2011: 89). This article is based on the approaches mentioned above.

3. Composition Recent research shows that the majority of Slovene complex words are still formed by means of suffixation (Stramljič Breznik 2005a: 505−520). The tendency of compounding is becoming stronger, probably under the influence of English, particularly in journalistic Slovene (Logar 2005: 211−225), and in new technological vocabulary (Stramljič Breznik

2982

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

2003: 105−118). Composition is productive in the formation of nouns and adjectives, but less frequent in verbs. Based on the grammatical relations in the corresponding phrase, compounds are determinative or copulative. Both categories can be interfixedsuffixed or only interfixed.

3.1. Nominal compounds 3.1.1. Determinative compounds According to their morphemic structure, most Slovene determinative compounds are interfixed-suffixed compounds. They consist of two stems, connected with an interfix (linking vowel) -o-, -e-, -i- or without an interfix, and one suffix, where neither the combination of the first two nor of the last two elements exists as free word (cf. article 33 on synthetic compounds in German, article 168 on Macedonian, and others). These compounds are formed from nominal phrases containing a premodifier or a postmodifier and thus belong to endocentric compounds. The postmodifier is realized by a nominal phrase, mostly a prepositional nominal phrase. N+N+SUFF: mrež-e-kril-ec ‘net-winged insect; lit. net-e-wing-SUFF’ ← tisti, ki ima krila z mrežo ‘the one who has wings of (like) a net’, glav-o-prs-je ‘prosoma; lit. heado-breast-SUFF’; cf. also compounds denoting places (križ-pot-je ‘cross-roads; lit. crossway-SUFF’, sred-o-gor-je ‘mountains of medium height; lit. middle-o-mountain-SUFF’) or material (slon-o-košč-evina ‘ivory; lit. elephant-o-bone-SUFF’). Composition in which the motivating nominal phrase contains an adjectival modifier, is more common. The semantic categories of this type are analogous to those of deadjectival suffixation (cf. section 4.1.2): A+N+SUFF: animate bearer of a property (srednj-e-šol-ec ‘high-schooler’ ← tisti, ki hodi v srednjo šolo ‘the one who attends a high-school’); abstract property (prazn-oglav-ost ‘empty-headedness’); state/time (enak-o-noč-je ‘equinox; lit. equal-o-nightSUFF’); Num+N+SUFF: inanimate bearer of a property (dv-o-dejan-ka ‘a play with two acts; lit. two-o-act-SUFF’, štir-i-sed-0̸ ‘boat with four seats; lit. four-i-seat-0̸’); place (dv-o-rečje ‘confluence of two rivers; lit. two-o-river-SUFF’), etc. The formation of nominal compounds from a verbal phrase is also very productive, yielding predictable word-formation meanings (cf. section 4.1.3): N+V+SUFF: animate agent (tel-o-vad-ec ‘gymnast; lit. body-o-train-SUFF’); inanimate agent, which in Slovene word-formation is distinguished from instrument nouns (zob-otreb-ec ‘tooth-pick; lit. tooth-o-clean-SUFF’), or nouns denoting a material, substance according to its purpose (kol-o-maz-0̸ ‘wheel oil; lit. wheel-o-oil-0̸’); action noun/state noun (dom-o-tož-je ‘home-sickness; lit. home-o-long-for-ABSTR’, bog-o-služ-je ‘holy mass; lit. god-o-serve-ABSTR’); place nouns (kamn-o-lom-0̸ ‘quarry; lit. stone-o-break0̸’), time (obsolete list-o-pad-0̸ ‘November; lit. leaf-o-fall-0̸’), probably based on metonymy. Interfixed determinative compounds consisting of two nominal elements (N+N) are not ascribed word-formation meanings. Their syntactic base is a nominal phrase with a nominal postmodifier (fot-o-reportaža ‘photo reportage’ ← reportaža s fotografijami

163. Slovene

2983

‘reportage with photos’). The productivity of such formations is considerable, due to the internationalization of lexis in times of globalization.

3.1.2. Copulative compounds Interfixed compounds of the type bog-o-človek ‘God-man’ are, according to Bajec (1952: 101), neither common nor typical of Slovene. More common are formations from proper names, e.g., dual authorship (Breznik-Ramovš) or place names (Vič-Rudnik). Recent material shows that the normative spelling of copulative compounds is hyphenated. Copulative suffixed compounds (as such are regarded, e.g., ciril-0̸-metod-ovec ‘member of the order of St. Cyril and Metod’) are rare.

3.1.3. Composition and abbreviation According to Toporišič (1976−2004, 4th ed.: 159), abbreviated compounds as a combination of truncation and juxtaposition constitute a separate category. This very productive formation type includes abbreviations consisting of the initial letters (EU ← Evropska unija), or of syllables of a multi-word expression (INTES ← Industrija testenin ‘Pasta industry’), or a combination of both (DeSUS ← Demokratična stranka upokojencev Slovenije ‘Democratic Party of the Pensioners of Slovenia’). Sometimes the word is no longer seen as an abbreviation: aids ← Akvirirani imunski deficitni sindrom (from English Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). There is also a trend towards compounds with abbreviated constituents of domestic or foreign origin (TV-program, LCD-projektor). Some also contain a symbol (C-vitamin ‘vitamin C’, H-bomba). The so-called eformations (e-študent ‘student studying online’) and m-formations (m-bančništvo ‘mobile banking’) are also very productive.

3.2. Adjectival compounds 3.2.1. Determinative adjectival compounds Determinative interfixed-suffixed adjectival compounds consist of two stems and one affix, including the zero-suffix, where neither the combination of the first two nor of the last two elements exists as a free word. They are formed from a nominal phrase with an adjectival or nominal modifier. According to the semantics of the modifier, the following categories of determinative adjectival compounds are distinguished: a) qualitative (dolg-o-rok-0̸ ‘long-armed’ ← tak, ki je dolgih rok ‘of the kind that is of long arms’), b) quantitative (pet-o-krak-0̸ ‘five-pointed’ ← tak, ki je iz petih krakov ‘of the kind that is of five points’), c) comparative (koz-o-glav-0̸ ‘goat-headed’ ← tak, ki ima glavo kot koza ‘of the kind that has a head like that of a goat’).

2984

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Determinative adjectival compounds can also be formed from verbal phrases. The verb is accompanied either by a noun without a preposition (rastlin-o-jed-0̸ ‘herbivore’ ← tak, ki je rastline ‘of the kind who eats plants’), or with a preposition (slav-o-hlep-en ‘avid for fame’ ← tak, ki hlepi po slavi ‘of the kind who craves fame’), or an adverb (ostr-o-strel-en ‘sharp shooting’ ← tak, ki ostro strelja ‘of the kind that shoots fiercely’). The base of interfixed determinative compounds mostly contains combinations of two colour adjectives (modr-o-zelen ‘blue-green’ ← moder z zelenim (odtenkom) ‘blue with a green hue’), or qualitative adjectives (bujn-o-krasen ‘lusciously wonderful’ ← krasen z bujnim ‘wonderful with lusciousness’).

3.2.2. Copulative adjectival compounds The base of copulative interfixed-suffixed compounds contains two nouns in a coordinative relation (ind-o-evrop-ski ‘Indo-European’ ← ta, ki je povezan z Indijo in Evropo ‘that which is connected with India and Europe’). Copulative interfixed compounds contain a combination of at least two (or more) qualitative adjectives (črn-o-bel ‘blackand-white’ ← črn in bel ‘black and white’) or relational adjectives (sintetičn-o-analitičen ‘synthetical-analytical’, slovensk-o-avstrijsk-o-italijanski ‘Slovene-Austrian-Italian’). The copulative relation is marked by a hyphen. Spelling without a hyphen is found in older orthography, e.g., gluhonem ‘deaf-mute’ ← gluh in nem ‘deaf and dumb’.

3.3. Verbal compounds Verbal compounds are comparatively rare in Slovene. Syntactically they can be only determinative, and morphemically only interfixed-suffixed or interfixed. Their syntactic base consists of primary verbs (delati ‘to make’, biti ‘to be’, etc.) accompanied by a nominal phrase (dobr-o-volj-iti ‘to put sb. in a good mood’ ← delati dobro voljo ‘to make a good mood’). In the case of interfixed compounds, the syntactic base contains a verb phrase the headword of which is the head of the verbal compound (brz-o-javiti ‘to telegraph’ ← javiti brzo ‘to inform quickly’).

3.4. Neoclassical compounds Slovene also has foreign elements that can occur in suffixed derivatives (cerebral-ec ‘patient with cerebral palsy’, prevar-ant ‘conman’ ← prevarati ‘to con’), or in formations of the type super-človek ‘super man’, evro-čakalnica ‘euro-waiting-room’, etc. There are a significant number of compounds mostly with Greek or Latin roots, which are internationally used words that mainly occur in philosophy, science, technology, etc. They have different names, such as international compounds, hybrid compounds of the affixoid type, hybrid compounds (Stramljič Breznik 2005b: 7−30), affixoid compounds (Waszakowa 2005: 56). The latter are divided into the prefixoid type (e.g., agro-, bio-, kiber- ‘cyber-’, etc.), and the suffixoid type (-bus, -fil ‘-phile’, -logija ‘-logy’, etc.).

163. Slovene

2985

Toporišič (1976−2004, 4th ed.: 188−189) treats them in the same way as domestic interfixed-suffixed determinative compounds, applying the same morphemic analysis (cf. geo-graf-ija ‘geography’ and zakon-o-da-ja ‘legislation; lit. law-o-give-ABSTR’), or as purely interfixed compounds, based on their double accentuation and the non-suffixed second part, e.g., arteri-o-skleroza ‘arteriosclerosis’, astr-o-fizika ‘astrophysics’. Vidovič Muha (1988: 161−163), on the other hand, does not regard them as part of the Slovene word-formation system, but as compounds with substitute (borrowed) constituents in their syntactic base and treats them as interfixed determinative compounds with the “substitute” as the first constituent (agrotehnika ← tehnika za kmetijstvo ‘technology for agriculture’), or the second (kostumografija ‘costumography’ ← veda o kostumih ‘science of costumes’), or both (aerodrom ‘airport’ ← cesta za letala ‘road for planes’).

4. Derivation 4.1. Nominal derivation Most Slovene complex words are the result of nominal suffixal derivation from verbs, adjectives, nouns or adverbs, rarely from other parts of speech. Word-formation meanings are specific for individual parts of speech, with nouns displaying the richest array of meanings.

4.1.1. Denominal nouns Nominal derivatives are divided into two categories: non-modificational and modificational derivatives. The following categories of n o n - m o d i f i c a t i o n a l formations can be distinguished, also including words derived from a prepositional phrase. P e r s o n a l n o u n s with the typical suffixes -ar (jahtar ‘yachtsman’ ← jahta ‘yacht’), -ist (humorist ‘comedian’ ← humor ‘humour’), -ec (honorarec ‘part-time employee’ ← honorar ‘fee’); I n a n i m a t e n o u n s with the typical suffixes -ak (debl-ak ‘trunk boat’ ← deblo ‘trunk’), -ka (furlanka ‘a kind of axe’ ← Furlanija ‘Friuli’), and -ica (bohoričica ‘orthography, spelling invented by Bohorič’ (cf. section 1)); The meaning of an abstract p r o p e r t y (or state) is mainly expressed with the suffix -ija (grdobija ‘bad thing, bad deed’ ← grdoba ‘sth. ugly, bastard’), and -(ov/ev)stvo (barabstvo ‘barbarism’ ← baraba ‘rascal, scoundrel’, hlapčevstvo ‘servitude, servility’ ← hlapec ‘farmhand, hired man’). Abstract property nouns derived from a prepositional phrase frequently use the suffix -je, e.g., brezdelje ‘idleness’ ← brez dela ‘without work’; P l a c e n o u n s are derived with the suffixes -ik (imenik ‘directory’ ← ime ‘name’) or -at (dekanat ‘dean’s office’ ← dekan ‘dean’), -ija (kmetija ‘farmhouse’ ← kmet ‘farmer’), and -išče (smetišče ‘dump’ ← smet ‘rubbish’). There are also examples derived from a prepositional phrase (ob-rob-je ‘margin’ ← ob robu ‘on the margin’). M o d i f i c a t i o n a l derivatives can be formed by prefixation and suffixation.

2986

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Slovene prefixes can be of domestic or foreign origin (see also sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.3). In some descriptions (cf. Toporišič 1976−2004, 2nd ed.: 122) the meaning of a prefix is correlated with the meaning of the corresponding adjective in the “syntactic base” of the prefixed noun (e.g., nadučitelj is correlated with višji učitelj ‘senior teacher; lit. higher teacher’). In the following, we will only provide some examples (cf. also Toporišič 1976−2004, 3rd ed.: 146 f.). Hierarchy and quantification: hiper- ‘hyper-’ (hipertenzija ‘hypertension’), nad- ‘over, higher’ (nad-učitelj ‘senior teacher’), pod- ‘sub-’ (pod-oficer ‘deputy officer’, pod-odbor ‘subcommittee’), sub- ‘sub-, under-’ (sub-kultura ‘subculture’), etc.; Time: eks- ‘former, ex-’ (ekskralj ‘ex-king’), po- ‘subsequent, after-’ (po-poldan ‘afternoon’, po-sezona ‘after-season’), post- ‘post-’ (post-komunizem ‘postcommunism’), pra- ‘proto-’ (pra-človek ‘prehistoric man’, pra-zgodovina ‘prehistory, prehistoric times’), pred- ‘before’ (pred-jed ‘starter, appetizer; lit. pre-dish’, pred-igra ‘overture, prelude’), re- ‘again, anew’ (re-elekcija ‘re-election’), so- ‘co-, simultaneous’ (so-vladar ‘co-poprietor’, so-stanovalec ‘cohabitant’), etc.; Space: infra- ‘internal’ (infra-struktura ‘infrastructure’), med- ‘inter-’ (med-prostor ‘interspace’, med-jed ‘snack; lit. between-meal’), intra- ‘inner-’ (intra-net ‘intranet’), trans- ‘trans-’ (trans-atlantik ‘transatlantic steamer’), etc.; Negation, contrast: anti- ‘anti-’ (anti-feminizem ‘anti-feminism’, anti-delec ‘antiparticle’), kontra- ‘counter-’ (kontra-revolucija ‘counterrevolution’), ne- ‘un-, non-’ (ne-sreča ‘misfortune, disaster’, ne-moč ‘powerlessness’), proti‘anti-, counter-’ (proti-argument ‘counter-argument’, proti-dokaz ‘counterevidence’, proti-globalist ‘antiglobalist’), etc. Toporišič (1976−2004, 4th ed.: 183−187) distinguishes eight semantic groups (categories) of modificational suffixal derivatives, the more prominent of which are the d i m i n u t i v e and the d e r o g a t o r y group. Derivatives of the first group can have “pure” diminutive meaning (ključ-ek ‘little key’ ← ključ, slič-ica ‘little picture’ ← slika), or affectionate-diminutive meaning (debelušč-ek ‘little fat person’ ← debeluh ‘fatso’, ptička ‘birdie’ ← ptica, dete-ce ‘little baby’ ← dete). The derogatory group is divided into derivatives with pejorative meaning, often overlapping with the augmentative (berač-on ‘beggar’ ← berač, bab-ura ‘hag’ ← baba, jezik-ulja ‘windbag’ ← jezik ‘language’), and pejorative-diminutive meaning (človeč-ek ‘little person’ ← človek, knjiž-ica ‘little book’ ← knjiga, rev-če ‘poor little person’ ← reva ‘poor person’). Concerning the categorization of f e m i n i n e n o u n s derived from masculine nouns (or, seldom, masculine nouns from feminine nouns) there are different points of view: whereas Vidovič Muha (2011: 30) does not regard them as modificational derivatives because their syntactic base does not contain a quantitative or qualitative adjective, Toporišič (1976−2004, 4th ed.: 183−187) includes the expression of feminine gender into modificational derivation, e.g., učitelj-ica ‘female teacher’ (← učitelj, ki je ženska ‘teacher who is a woman’), gospodinj-ec ‘househusband, home maker’ (← gospodinja ‘housewife’). Other modificational derivatives are nouns denoting the y o u n g o f a s p e c i e s (fant-ek ‘baby boy’ ← mlad fant ‘young boy’, zajč-ek ‘baby rabbit’ ← mlad zajec ‘young rabbit’, srn-ica ‘baby deer’ ← mlada srna ‘young doe’). Toporišič also regards c o l l e c t i v e n o u n s as modificational derivatives, due to their expression of a quantitative modification (srnj-ad ‘deer’ ← več srn ‘a group of deer’, drev-je ‘grove’ ← več dreves ‘a group of trees’, bral-stvo ‘readership’ ← več bralcev ‘a group of readers’).

163. Slovene

2987

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Deadjectival nouns (Stramljič Breznik 1999: 113−120) belong to the following categories: The most productive suffix for a b s t r a c t n o u n s is -ost (surovost ‘brutality’ ← surov ‘brutal’), fairly productive are also -ina (ostrina ‘sharpness’ ← oster ‘sharp’), and -ota (nagota ‘nakedness’ ← nag ‘naked’). As the result of metonymy and metaphor, deadjectival nouns of this kind typically denote an animate being, a thing or an action (blazn-ost ‘an insane deed’ ← blazen ‘insane, crazy’, suh-ota ‘thin person’ ← suh ‘thin’). The most frequent suffix for p e r s o n a l n o u n s ( animate bearers of a property) is -ik (nedolžnik ‘innocent man’ ← nedolžen ‘innocent’), followed by -ež (prevzetnež ‘vain man’ ← prevzeten ‘vain’) and -ec (starec ‘old man’ ← star ‘old’). For n o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s (inanimate bearers of a property) the most frequent suffix is -ica (gugalnica ‘swing’ ← gugalen ‘swing-like’), relatively productive are also -ik and -ina (srebrnina ‘silverware’ ← srebrn adj. ‘silver’), -ka (pletenka ‘wicker bottle’ ← pleten ‘plaited, made of wicker’), also kislina ‘acid’ ← kisel ‘sour’, etc. The meaning of deadjectival p l a c e n o u n s is mostly expressed by the suffix -ica (učilnica ‘classroom’ ← učilen ‘related to learning’), -ina (kraljevina ‘kingdom’ ← kraljev poss. adj. ‘of a king’), and -ik (dimnik ‘chimney’ ← dimen ‘related to smoke’). The category of nouns with a temporal meaning is less productive, mainly using the suffix -ek in the names of weekdays (petek ‘Friday’ ← peti ‘fifth’).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns A b s t r a c t n o u n s are typically formed with -(a/e)nje (igranje ‘playing’ ← igrati ‘to play’, sedenje ‘sitting’ ← sedeti ‘to sit’). Also productive are -ba (borba ‘fight’ ← boriti ‘to fight’), -(a/i)tev (spregatev ‘conjugation’ ← spregati ‘to conjugate’, molitev ‘prayer’ ← moliti ‘to pray’). A g e n t n o u n s denote persons and animals according to the action expressed by the verb in the word-formation base. Productive suffixes are -(a/i)lec (drsalec ‘skater’ ← drsati ‘to skate’, branilec ‘defender’ ← braniti ‘to defend’), stylistically marked -ač (pretepač ‘scoundrel’ ← pretepati ‘to hit, beat’), -nik (govornik ‘speaker’ ← govoriti ‘to speak’), -ator (ilustrator ‘illustrator’ ← ilustrirati ‘to illustrate’), and -(a/i)telj (izdajatelj ‘publisher’ ← izdajati ‘to publish’, branitelj ‘defender’ ← braniti ‘to defend’), cf. Stramljič Breznik (2010: 29). The suffix -vec is used if the base contains a non-suffixed verb the root of which ends in a vowel (e.g., pi-vec ‘drinker’ ← piti ‘to drink’); -vec is also used instead of -lec when the base ends in -l- or -lj- (delivec ‘dealer’ ← deliti ‘to deal’, kegljavec ‘bowler’ ← kegljati ‘to bowl’). R e s u l t n o u n s are represented by formations of the type dobi-ček ‘income’ (← dobiti ‘to get’), doda-tek ‘addition’ (← dodati ‘to add’), iztreb-ek ‘excrement’ (← iztrebiti ‘to excrete’), ris-ba ‘drawing’ (← risati ‘to draw’), or with the suffix -(a/e)nje (žganje ‘spirits’ ← žgati ‘to burn’, hlajenje ‘cooling’ ← hladiti ‘to cool’) and -(a/i)tev (dajatev ‘donation’ ← dajati ‘to donate’, molitev ‘prayer’ ← moliti ‘to pray’). These nouns can also have the meaning of action. The meaning ‘result of an action’ is based on metonymy (Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 168).

2988

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

In s t r u m e n t n o u n s are typically expressed by derivatives of neuter gender in -(a/i)lo (mehčalo ‘softener’ ← mehčati ‘to soften’, lepilo ‘glue’ ← lepiti ‘to glue’, rezilo ‘blade’ ← rezati ‘to cut’), partly also by derivatives in -(i)vo (cepivo ‘vaccine’ ← cepiti ‘to vaccinate’) and masculine nouns in -ek. There are also nouns such as odpir-ač ‘opener’ (← odpirati ‘to open’), črpal-ka ‘pump’ (← črpati ‘to pump’), klic-aj ‘exlamation point’ (← klicati ‘to call’); in the standard literature on Slovene word-formation they are regarded as “inanimate deverbal agent nouns”. P l a c e n o u n s are most commonly expressed with neuter derivatives in -išče (krožišče ‘roundabout’ ← krožiti ‘to circle’), and -(a/i)lišče (gledališče ‘theater’ ← gledati ‘to watch’, zdravilišče ‘spa’ ← zdraviti ‘to heal’).

4.2. Adjectival derivation A complete overview of adjectival word-formation categories on the basis of their syntactic and transformational properties is given in Vidovič Muha (1978: 253−276; 1981: 19−42). The existing affixes for the formation of adjectives are multifunctional. Thus the suffixes used for the formation of classifying (relational) adjectives in -ski (slovenski ‘Slovene’ ← Slovenija) or -(š)ki (hrvaški ‘related to a Croatian’ ← Hrvat ‘Croat’) can also derive qualitative adjectives (gizdalinski ‘dandyish, foppish, vain’ ← gizdalin ‘dandy’, lisjaški ‘sly’ ← lisjak ‘fox’), while the relational-possessive suffixes -(o/e)v and -in can produce relational adjectives when combined with the stem of an inanimate noun (lipov (čaj) ‘lime-tree (tea)’ ← lipa, borovničev (džem) ‘blueberry (jam)’ ← borovnica, limonin (sok) ‘lemon (juice)’ ← limona).

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives Suffixed adjectives can be derived from nouns or prepositional phrases. There are several semantic groups (Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 196−201): R e l a t i o n a l - p o s s e s s i v e adjectives are formed from masculine nouns with the suffix -ov or -ev (medvedov ‘belonging to the bear’ ← medved ‘bear’, stričev ‘uncle’s’ ← stric ‘uncle’), and from neuter nouns (detetov ‘baby’s’ ← dete ‘baby’). The suffix -in is added to stems of feminine nouns (ženin ‘wife’s’ ← žena ‘wife’). They are related to an individual referent. In order to express collective and classifying possession, the suffixes correspond to those for relational adjectives (medved-ji ‘that which belongs to bears’, sloven-ski ‘Slovene’, lesen ‘wooden’ ← les ‘wood’, etc.). Also productive are the suffixes -s/š/ki (salomonski ‘Solomonic’, čudaški ‘weird’ ← čudak ‘weirdo’), -(j)ansk-i (hegeljanski ‘Hegelian’), and -ovski (fantovski ‘boyish’ ← fant ‘boy’), which can derive relational and qualitative adjectives. Q u a l i t a t i v e adjectives with p o s s e s s i v e meaning (and an additional quantitative nuance ‘full of’) are derived by -av (bolhav ‘full of fleas’ ← bolha ‘flea’), -(o/ e)vnat (grmovnat ‘bushy’ ← grm ‘bush’, gričevnat ‘hilly’ ← grič ‘hill’), and -(o/e)vit (čudovit ‘wonderful’ ← čudo ‘wonder’, slojevit ‘layered’ ← sloj ‘layer’). Similarly, the meaning ‘fully affected by’ is expressed by the suffixes -en (vročičen ‘feverish’ ←

163. Slovene

2989

vročica ‘fever’), -av (gobav ‘leprous, leprosy-infected’ ← goba ‘fungus’), and -ast (mozoljast ‘pimply’ ← mozolj ‘pimple’). Adjectives from nouns denoting materials use the suffixes -nat and -ast. Besides the relational-possessive meaning they can express s i m i l a r i t y (slamnat ‘thatched’ and ‘straw-like, strawy’ ← slama ‘straw’), -ast (gumijast ‘rubber’, e.g., gumijasta cev ‘rubber hose’, and ‘rubbery’ ← guma ‘rubber’). Only similarity is expressed by -ast as in čebulast ‘onion-like’ (← čebula ‘onion’). Adjectives can also be derived from prepositional nominal phrases (pri-roč-en ‘handy’ ← pri roki ‘at hand’).

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Deadjectival adjectives are derived by modificational prefixes and suffixes. Most prefixes used here overlap with those for nouns. The derived adjectives have two stresses (Toporišič 1973: 105; 1982: 344−345). They express i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n (naj- ‘most’, pra- ‘primordial(ly)’, pre- ‘too much’, hiper-, super-, mega-, ultra-) or a t t e n u a t i o n (hipo- ‘hypo-’, pa- ‘pseudo-’, sub-). Adjectival prefixes also express t e m p o r a l (po- ‘subsequent(ly)’, post-, pred- ‘pre-’, so- ‘co-’), l o c a l (med- ‘middle’, znotraj- ‘internal(ly)’, zunaj- ‘external(ly)’), and p r i v a t i v e meaning (ne-resničen ‘untrue’), including foreign prefixes (a-, anti-, i-, in-). Toporišič (1976−2004, 4th ed.: 204−206) distinguishes several groups of modificational adjectival suffixation, e.g., 1) diminution/affection, 2) augmentation, 3) approximation, 4) intensification, 5) expression of a generalized relational-possessive meaning, as opposed to individual possession (materinji ‘maternal’ vs. materin ‘mother’s’), 6) similarity, 7) clear categorization of a word as an adjective by means of additional derivation with typical adjective suffixes, e.g., -en (cf. boječ ‘fearful’ and boječ-en ‘id.’), 8) clarification (cf. 7) plus emotional colouring (e.g., tak ‘such’ and takšen ‘id.’). Based on the syntactic approach that is prevalent in studies on Slovene word-formation, the modificational meaning of suffixed adjectives corresponds to the intensifiers zelo ‘very’ and bolj ‘more’ in their syntactic bases, cf. a u g m e n t a t i v e adjectives, as, e.g., velikanski ‘giant’ ← zelo velik ‘very big’, d i m i n u t i v e / a f f e c t i v e adjectives (e.g., drobcen ‘tiny’ ← zelo droben ‘very tiny’), and g r a d a t i o n with the suffix/inflection -ši (širši ‘wider’ ← bolj širok ‘more wide’), -ji (nižji ‘lower’ ← bolj nizek ‘more low’), and -ejši (debelejši ‘fatter’ ← bolj debel ‘more fat’). A t t e n u a t i o n , on the other hand, is denoted by derivatives whose syntactic base contains the adverb nekoliko ‘a little bit’ (sladk-av ‘sweetish’ ← nekoliko sladek ‘a little bit sweet’, bled-ičast ‘palish’ ← nekoliko bled ‘a little bit pale’, meglen-ast ‘hazy’ ← nekoliko meglen ‘a little bit foggy’).

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal adjectives with the syntactic base “of the kind that V” are categorized into those of participial and of non-participial origin (Toporišič 1984: 151−153). Semantically, deverbal adjectives of both types constitute the following groups:

2990

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

A c t i v e a d j e c t i v e s of participial origin (active present and past participles) are formed with the suffixes -oč (pisoč ‘writing’ ← pisati ‘to write’), -eč (hrepeneč ‘longing, wistful’ ← hrepeneti ‘to yearn’) − as participles they are obsolete; -l (zrel ‘ripe < (has) ripened, mature’ ← zoreti ‘to ripen’, gnil ‘rotten < (has) rotted’ ← gniti ‘to rot’); cf. also article 107 on grammaticalization in Slavic word-formation. Some adjectives of this category have become lexicalized, e.g., vroč ‘hot’ ← vreti ‘to boil’. Active adjectives of non-participial origin are formed with the suffixes -en (bloden ‘delusional’ ← bloditi ‘to wander (about)’), and -(a/e)nten (fascinanten ‘fascinating’ ← fascinirati ‘to fascinate’). A c t i v e - m o d a l meaning is conveyed by adjectives with the suffixes -(a/i)len (blažilen ‘soothing’ ← blažiti ‘to soothe’), and -iven (eksploziven ‘explosive’ ← eksplodirati ‘to explode’). P u r p o s i v e meaning is expressed by adjectives with the suffixes -en (vzgojen ‘educational’ ← vzgojiti ‘to educate’), -(a/i)len (gugalen ‘swinging’ ← gugati ‘to swing’, pomirjevalen ‘pacifying’ ← pomirjevati ‘to pacify’, čakalen ‘waiting’ ← čakati ‘to wait’), -(a)tiven (stimulativen ‘stimulative’ ← stimulirati ‘to stimulate’). D i s p o s i t i o n a l meaning is typical of adjectives in -ast (cmerast ‘whiny’ ← cmeriti ‘to whine’), -av (gobezdav ‘rambling’ ← gobezdati ‘to ramble’), and -ljiv (ubogljiv ‘obedient’ ← ubogati ‘to obey’). P a s s i v e adjectives of participial origin (passive past participle) are formed with -n (spoštovan ‘respected, esteemed’ ← spoštovati ‘to respect, honour’, vdan ‘devoted, faithful’ ← vdati ‘to devote oneself’), -en (izvoljen ‘predestined’ ← izvoliti ‘to elect, choose’), -t (skrit ‘hidden’ ← skriti ‘to hide’). They may have a narrower meaning compared to the verbal bases and are not regarded as the result of conversion. P a s s i v e m o d a l adjectives are formed with the suffixes -en (prenosen ‘portable’ ← prenašati ‘to transport’), -(a/i)len (pralen ‘washable’ ← prati ‘to wash’), -(lj/l)iv (deljiv ‘divisible’ ← deliti ‘to divide’).

4.2.4. Deadverbial adjectives Adjectives are typically derived from adverbs with the suffixes -šnji (včerajšnji ‘yesterday’s’ ← včeraj ‘yesterday’), -en (ponočen ‘nightly’ ← ponoči ‘at night’), -šen (precejšen ‘considerable, quite large’ ← precej ‘a lot’), -nji (sinočnji ‘of last night’ ← sinoči ‘last night’), -ski (opoldanski ‘afternoon’s’ ← opoldan ‘at noon’). The formation from particles is limited, e.g., morebit-en ‘possible’ (← morebit ‘perhaps, maybe’).

4.3. Verbal derivation The syntactic bases for derived verbs − as described in the standard works on Slovene word-formation − can contain nouns, adjectives, adverbs and verbs modified with an adverb. Derived verbs are thus divided into suffixed verbs, derivatives from a prepositional phrase, modificational derivatives and prefixed verbs.

4.3.1. Denominal verbs According to Vidovič Muha (1988: 17−21), verbs are derived from nouns with the help of “primary verbs” (to make/do, be, give, become, have) which are transformed into a

163. Slovene

2991

verbal morpheme. The syntactic bases are divided into the following groups according to the valency of the primary verbs: a1) to make/do NACC (gubati ‘to wrinkle’ ← delati gube ‘to make wrinkles’, korakati ‘to step’ ← delati korake ‘to make steps’); a2) to do NINSTR (blatiti ‘to muddy’ ← delati z blatom ‘to work, do sth. with mud’); b1) to be NNOM (kraljevati ‘to rule as king’ ← biti kralj ‘to be king’); b2) to be + PREPOSITION + N (gnezditi ‘to nest’ ← biti v gnezdu ‘to be in a nest’); c1) to givePF/IPFNACC (financirati ‘to finance’ ← dati/dajati finance ‘to give finances’); c2) to give + PREPOSITION + N (cementirati ‘to cement’ ← dati v cement ‘to put into cement’); d) to becomePF/IPF NNOM (hlapeti ‘to evaporate’ ← postajati hlap ‘to become vapour’); e) to have + NACC (dolgovati ‘to owe’ ← imeti dolg ‘to have debt’). Verbal derivatives can also be formed from a primary verb and a prepositional nominal phrase. The preposition is followed by a noun or pronoun which is part of the syntactic base (obglaviti ‘to behead’ ← dati ob glavo ‘to put away (sb.’s) head’) or not (predročiti ‘to put arms in front’ ← dati roke pred (sebe) ‘to put arms in front of (oneself)’).

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Deadjectival derivation of verbs is interpreted as based on “primary verbs” (to make, be, become, etc.) accompanied by adjectives. It is not as frequent as denominal derivation. The most productive primary verbs are: a) b) c) d)

to to to to

make A (sladkati ‘to sweeten’ ← delati sladko ‘to make sweet’); be A (noreti ‘to go wild’ ← biti nor ‘to be crazy’); become A (zeleneti ‘to turn green’ ← postajati zelen ‘to become green’); have as A (milovati ‘to caress’ ← imeti za milega ‘to have as a darling’).

Deadjectival verbs can also be formed from primary verbs accompanied by adverbs. This type is less productive, e.g., enačiti ‘to equate’ (← delati enako ‘to make equal’). Derivation from interjections is relatively productive (e.g., gaga-ti ‘to quack’, aha-ti ‘to say aha’, hopsa-ti ‘to hop’).

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs This category includes modificational derivatives (prefixed and suffixed) and non-modificational derivatives (suffixed derivatives and derivatives with a postfix). The following list contains all verbal prefixes, including foreign prefixes some of which are not isolatable in Slovene (Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 214−223): a- (atrofirati ‘to become atrophic’), ab- (abdicirati ‘to abdicate’), ad- (adaptirati ‘to adapt’), de-/ dez- (depolitizirati ‘to depoliticize’, dezangažirati ‘to disengage’), dis-/di- (dislocirati ‘to dislocate’), do- (dokazati ‘to prove’ ← kazati ‘to show’), e- (emigrirati ‘to emigrate’), eks- (ekskomunicirati ‘to excommunicate’), hiper- (hiperdimenzionirati ‘to overdesign, super-/oversize’), in- (inaktivirati ‘to inactivate’), iz- (izteči ‘to flow out’), izpo-/

2992

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

spo- (izpopolniti ‘to complete, improve’ ← polniti ‘to fill’), izpod-/spod- (izpodsekati ‘to cut from under’), izpre-/spre- (izpregovoriti ‘to utter’ ← govoriti ‘to speak’), na(nakladati ‘to load (up)’), nad- (nadzidati ‘to build on’), ob-/o- (oprati ‘to wash’), od(odlomiti ‘to break off’), po- (popisati ‘to fill with writing’), spo- (spogledati se ‘to look at each other’), pod- (podčrtati ‘to underline’), pre- (prestaviti ‘to move away’), spod(spodkopati ‘to undermine’ ← kopati ‘to dig’), spre- (spregledati ‘to look through’), pred- (predlagati ‘to propose’), pri- (prinesti ‘to bring’ ← nesti ‘to carry’), pro- (proučiti ‘to study (thoroughly)’), raz- (razrezati ‘to cut into pieces’), re- (reorganizirati ‘to reorganize’), s1-/se-/sn- (speti ‘to attach’, sešiti ‘to sew (together)’, sniti se ‘to meet; lit. come together’), s-2/se-/sn- (spustiti ‘to let go’, strgati ‘to tear off’, snesti ‘to eat up’), s-/se- (segreti ‘to warm (up)’, skočiti ‘to jump’), z-/s- (zbrati ‘to gather’, skuhati ‘to cook’), u- (ubiti ‘to kill’), v-/u- (before v and a) (vbrizgati ‘to inject’, uvajati ‘to introduce’), vz-/v- (before ž, s) (vzdigniti ‘to lift’, vžgati ‘to set on fire’), za- (zaplavati ‘to start swimming’), zoper- (zoperstaviti se ‘to oppose, resist’). As can be seen by the examples above, the prefixes convey different meanings (e.g., local and temporal modification, aktionsart). Prefixation is mostly accompanied by the change of the aspect; synchronically, some prefixes serve exclusively the formation of the perfective aspect. Most prefixes are polysemous, cf. raz- with the meanings ‘separation’: razsekati ‘to chop up’ ← sekati ‘to cut’; ‘distribution’: razdati (denar) ‘to dissipate (money)’ ← dati ‘to give’; ‘reversal of an action’: razvezati ‘to untie’ ← vezati ‘to bind’; ‘intensity’: razgreti ‘to heat up’ ← greti ‘to warm’, etc. (Toporišič 1976−2004, 2nd ed.: 166 f.). Suffixed derivatives are categorized into the following groups (Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 225): Verbs with d i m i n u t i v e / a f f e c t i o n a t e meaning: -k- (bož-k-ati ‘to pet gently’ ← rahlo božati ‘to caress lightly’), -čk- (pojčkati ‘to sing in an adorable way’ ← ljubko peti ‘to sing adorably’), -c- (jokcati ‘to cry a little’ ← malo jokati ‘id.’), -ic(stopicati ‘to step lightly’ ← rahlo stopati ‘id.’), -lj- (skakljati ‘to jump lightly’ ← lahkotno skakati ‘id.’) and -ik- (belikati ‘to lightly shine in white’ ← rahlo beliti ‘id.’), and verbs with i n t e n s i f y i n g / p e j o r a t i v e meaning: -ast- (mikastiti ‘to beat strongly’ ← mikati ‘to shake’), -ih- (sopihati ‘to pant’ ← zelo sopsti ‘to breathe strongly’), -uh- (dremuhati ‘to nap soundly’ ← zelo dremati ‘id.’), -ič- (besedičiti ‘to ramble (on)’ ← nepotrebno besediti ‘to speak unnecessarily’). Moreover, deverbal suffixed i m p e r f e c t i v e r e p e t i t i v e / i t e r a t i v e verbs can be regarded not only as an inflectional category (aspect), but also as a word-formation category, e.g., kupovati ‘to buy repeatedly’ (← kupiti ‘to buy’). Deverbal verbs with a p o s t f i x were first mentioned in the Slovenska slovnica (Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 224) as derivatives with a pronominal postfix (lomiti ga ‘to do stupid things; lit. break it’), or a prepositional postfix (biti brez ‘to not possess; lit. be without’, priti ob ‘to lose; lit. come off sth.’, e.g., priti ob pamet ‘to be out of one’s mind’, cf. German um den Verstand kommen ‘id.’). Verbs with a postfix differ in meaning from their bases, cf. udariti ‘to hit’ vs. udariti jo ‘to move away quickly’. The category of verbs with a postfix sits on the borderline between phraseology and wordformation.

163. Slovene

2993

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs can be formed from nouns, adjectives, verbs and by modification from other adverbs. Adverbial derivation mainly consists of suffixation and can be divided into the semantic groups of place, time, manner and quantity. D e n o m i n a l adverbs are derived from nouns or noun forms and prepositional nominal phrases, and denote place (dom-a ‘(at) home’, dom-ov ‘home’ ← dom ‘home’), time (leto-s ‘this year’ ← leto ‘year’, z-jutr-aj ‘this morning’ ← z jutra ‘from the morning’), and manner (del-oma ‘partly’ ← del ‘part’, trušč-ema ‘in a noisy way’ ← trušč ‘noise’, z-vrh-oma ‘from the top’ ← z vrha ‘from the top’). Adverbs of manner are most productively derived from adjectives (lep-o ‘beautifully’ ← lep ‘beautiful’, vroč-e ‘hotly’ ← vroč ‘hot’). D e v e r b a l adverbs are mostly departicipial and denote manner, using the productive suffixes -oma (krad-oma ‘stealthily’ ← krasti ‘to steal’), -e (leže ‘lying’ ← ležati), and -aje (igraje ‘playing’ ← igrati). Some suffixes are archaic and unproductive: -ši (rekši ‘saying’ ← reči), -vši (vstopivši ‘entering’ ← vstopiti), and -iv (prihuliv ‘slyly’ ← prihuliti se ‘to sneak (up)’). D e a d v e r b i a l adverbs are, e.g., modificational derivatives such as sem-kaj ‘precisely here’ (← sem ‘here’), mal-ce ‘a little bit’ (← malo ‘a little’), and rare prefixed adverbs, e.g., po-pojutrišnjem ‘the day after the day after tomorrow’, pred-predlanskim ‘two years ago’, ne-lepo ‘unbeautifully’.

5. Conversion Conversion is regarded as subcategory of derivation in which a word of a certain part of speech is transformed into another by means of inflection and syntactic properties. In literature on Slovene word-formation, deverbal nouns with the typical inflections zero (e.g., pek-0̸ ‘baker’ ← peči ‘to bake’; jok-0̸ ‘cry(ing)’ ← jokati ‘to cry’) and -a (slug-a ‘servant’ ← služiti ‘to serve’), are, however, mostly regarded as the result of derivation (cf. Toporišič 1976−2004, 2nd ed.: 122, 124). In addition, there are cases of conversion without formal changes. Adjectival conversion (← N) is rare in Slovene, e.g., Film je bomba ‘The film is bombastic’, bomba film ‘a bombastic film’ (Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 276). Adverbs can be converted from nouns (e.g., sila drago ‘very expensive’ ← sila ‘force’) and adjectives (e.g., adverbs which are homonymous with adjectives of neuter gender: govoriti slovensko ‘to speak Slovene’ ← slovensko narečje ‘Slovene dialect’). Conversion into verbs is not typical of Slovene. Toporišič (1976−2004, 4th ed.: 412) also distinguishes conversions of interjections into verbs (Šiba pa švrk po hrbtu ‘And the cane (goes) swish on the back’), and of prepositions and conjunctions into nouns (Pred ni po ‘Before is not after’; To je velik če ‘This is a big if’).

5.1. Nominal conversion Deadjectival conversion is common (sometimes in connection with ellipsis), e.g., žvečilni ← žvečilni gumi ‘chewing gum’, seminarska ← seminarska naloga ‘seminar paper’, telečje ← telečje meso ‘veal; lit. calf-ADJ meat’, naša ← naša mati ‘our mother’.

2994

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

There are also cases of nominal conversion from adverbs (Vsak zakaj ima svoj zato ‘Every why has its because’), and even more frequently from interjections (Petelin je začel svoj glasen kikiriki ‘The cock began to crow his cock-a-doodle-doo’). The following changes in meaning (and function) of nouns are also regarded as conversion (N ← N), cf. Toporišič (1976−2004, 4th ed.: 157) and Stramljič Breznik (2004: 18 f.): a) common nouns, also brand names, from proper nouns, e.g., ford ‘car of the brand Ford’ ← Ford (surname), mihec ‘kind of knife’ ← Mihec (personal proper name); b) proper names from common nouns, e.g., Reka (place name) ← reka ‘river’, Zajec (surname) ← zajec ‘rabbit’; c) names of animal races or beverages, dishes, etc. from personal nouns (e.g., names of inhabitants): belgijec ‘Belgian horse’ ← Belgijec ‘inhabitant of Belgium’, mariborčan ‘wine type’ ← Mariborčan ‘inhabitant of Maribor’.

5.2. Conversion of grammatical words The so-called false prepositions are converted from adverbs (blizu mesta ‘near the city’ ← hoditi blizu ‘to walk near’). Modal sentence adverbials, adverbs and particles can be converted from adjectives (Gotovo še pride ‘He is certainly coming’ ← gotovo oblačilo ‘finished garment’), adverbs (Posebej njega povabi ‘Invite him especially’ ← zaviti posebej ‘to wrap separately’), and conjunctions (Ne pozabi, vendar ‘But, don’t forget’ ← Vrč je star, vendar lep ‘The jug is nice but old’). Interjections can be converted from sacred names (Jezus, je umrl? ‘Jesus, is he dead?’), with the variants (ježeš, ježešna ← Jezus) (cf. Toporišič 1976−2004, 4th ed.: 457).

6. Minor processes of word-formation B a c k f o r m a t i o n is not common in Slovene word-formation. It occurs with nouns based on the relationship “expert − field of expertise” (with foreign formants), e.g., sociolog ‘sociologist’ (← sociologija ‘sociology’), logik ‘logician’ (← logika ‘logic’), although there are also words in -olog without a corresponding abstract noun, cf. the Slovene corpus http://www.gigafida.net: prežiholog ‘researcher on the Slovene writer Prežih’ (Prežihov Voranc, 1893−1950), birokratolog ‘burocratologist’, bušolog ‘researcher on/biographer of G. Bush; Bushologist’, hamburgerolog ‘expert or fan of hamburgers’, etc. Word pairs such as piščal and piščalka (both with the meaning ‘pipe, whistle’ ← piskati ‘to pipe, whistle’) must be regarded as non-diminutive co-derivatives for which the formation in -ka is even preferred due to its more transparent structure as an instrument noun, see section 4.2.2 (but cf. cases of backderivation of real and alleged diminutives in -ka in article 156 on Polish). In native words there are some cases of suffix deletion, i.e. truncation of the derivational stem to which another suffix is added, e.g., bed-ak ‘fool’ (← bed-ast ‘foolish’), there is no derivative *bedastak; similarly kosm-ač ‘hairy man, hairy animal’ (← kosm-at ‘hairy’), the derivative kosmat-ač is obsolete (Pleteršnik 2006 [1894−95]).

163. Slovene

2995

R e d u p l i c a t i o n mainly occurs through juxtaposition of interjections. They can be spelt differently, as illustrated by the onomatopoetic interjection imitating the sound of flails: as one word (pikapoka), separate words (pika poka) or with a hyphen (pika-poka). Formations spelt as one word or with a hyphen are regarded as juxtaposed compounds and treated as part of word-formation, spelt separately they are considered as lexicalized phrases. According to the number of elements, reduplications are classified into doublets and triplets (Toporišič 1996: 269−278). Doublets can have vocalic changes (križ-kraž ‘zig-zag’, tik-tak ‘tick-tock’) or consonantal changes (lari-fari ‘pish-posh’), additional consonants (enci-benci ‘eeny-meeny’), or additional syllables (hopla-hop ‘oops-a-daisy’). Triplets contain different partial reduplications (ringa-ringa-raja ‘song words for the round dance’, ju-hu-hu ‘gee’, hop-sa-sa ‘hoopla’). Reduplications can derive verbs denoting animal sounds (kikirik-ati ‘to crow’ ← kikiriki ‘cock-a-doodle-do’) or sounds made by objects, e.g., tikatak-ati and tiktak-ati ‘to tick-tock’, or za-dingdong-ati (dvanajsto uro) ‘to begin to strike (12 o’clock)’. B l e n d i n g as the word-formation procedure in which one or both bases are partially deleted is still relatively rare in Slovene and occurs mostly in occasionalisms, ad-hoc formations used in internet communication or youth oriented magazines, youth literature, and advertising (Stramljič Breznik 2010: 167−177, 142−151). Here one can find blends in which the beginning of the first base and the end of the second base are merged (natiponke ← nati(kači) ‘sandals’ + (ja)ponke ‘flip-flops’); blends with overlapped parts (gnevnik ← gnev(ni) (dnev)nik ‘angry diary’), blends in which each part is written with a capital initial letter (DokMa ← dok(umentarci) + Mar(ibora) ‘Documentaries in Maribor’), and blends in which one part of the word is highlighted as a proper noun (čudoVito ← čudovito ‘wonderfully’ + proper noun Vito). C l i p p i n g of stylistically neutral words is rare, e.g., izem ‘artistic movement; lit. ism’, pona ‘affix’ ← (pri)pona ‘suffix’ and (pred)pona ‘prefix’, etc. Clippings mostly belong to informal registers. Sometimes a suffix is added (soft-ič ‘soft porn’ ← soft pornič), vinil-ka ‘vinyl record’ ← (poli)vinilna plošča. In proper nouns, clipped forms mostly occur with personal names (Iča ← (Mar)iča, Rado ← Rado(slav)). The suffixlike element -i can also be added to clipped nouns (prof-i ‘pro’ ← profesionalec ‘professional (n.)’), names (Kat-i ← Katja), or to affectionate forms of common nouns (kuž-i ← kužek ‘puppy’). Wo r d - c r e a t i o n , i.e. the formation of words without semantic or morphemic transparency mainly occurs in slang, in particular in reference to drugs when speakers want to conceal the meaning, e.g., džola, žbe, etc. ‘marihuana cigarettes’, fidžiti ‘smoking pot’. Names of firms with non-transparent meanings or trade names are mostly created through irregular clipping and blending, e.g., Domax ← Dornik + Maks (name of a Slovenian company), Sexergy (name of an energetic drink). The base of such words often contains English lexemes with preserved original spelling.

7. Conclusion The overview of Slovene word-formation shows that Slovene has a large and dynamic word-formation potential. Complex words formed through typologically systemic word-

2996

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

formation processes constitute the core, but non-systemic and ad-hoc formations also occur. The Slovene word-formation system plays an important role in the integration and adaptation of foreign linguistic elements into Slovene in the age of globalization. Slovene draws its regenerative power from its own word-formation elements and patterns by forming lexical units at various stylistic levels and thus fulfilling the needs of its users in various contexts of communication.

8. References Bajec, Anton 1950 Besedotvorje slovenskega jezika. Vol. 1: Izpeljava samostalnikov. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Bajec, Anton 1952 Besedotvorje slovenskega jezika. Vol. 2: Izpeljava slovenskih pridevnikov. Vol. 3: Zloženke. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Bajec, Anton 1959 Besedotvorje slovenskega jezika. Vol. 4: Predlogi in pripone. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Bohorič, Adam 1584 Arcticae horulae succisivae. Witebergae [Wittenberg]: Haeredes Iohan. Cratonis. Breznik, Anton 1934 [1916] Slovenska slovnica za srednje šole. 2nd ed. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja. Breznik, Anton 1944 Zloženke v slovenščini. In: Fran Ramovš (ed.), Razprave. Vol. 2, 55−76. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Dajnko, Peter 1824 Lehrbuch der windischen Sprache. Ein Versuch zur gründlichen Erlernung derselben für Deutsche, zur vollkommeneren Kenntniss für Slowenen. Grätz: Kienreich. FidaPLUS online http://www.fidaplus.net/ [last access 5 Aug 2011]. Gložančev, Alenka 2000 Imena podjetij kot jezikovnokulturno vprašanje. Ljubljana: Rokus. Logar, Nataša 2005 Norma v slovarju sodobne slovenščine: Zloženke in kratice. Družboslovne razprave 21(48): 211−225. Merše, Majda 2009 Slovenski knjižni jezik 16. stoletja. Razprave o oblikoslovju, besedotvorju, glasoslovju in pravopisu. Ljubljana: Založba Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti. Metelko, Fran 1825 Lehrgebäude der Slowenischen Sprache im Königreiche Illyrien und in den benachbarten Provinzen. Nach dem Lehrgebäude der böhm. Sprache des Hrn. Abbé Dobrowsky. Laibach: Eger. Miklosich, Franz [Miklošič, Fran] 1875 Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen. Vol. 2: Stammbildungslehre. Wien: Braumüller. Perušek, Rajko 1890 Zloženke v novej slovenščini. Novo mesto: Krajec.

163. Slovene

2997

Pleteršnik, Maks 2006 [1894−95] Slovensko-nemški slovar. Transliterirana izdaja na plošči CD-ROM. Ed. by Metka Furlan. Ljubljana: Založba Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti. [First published Ljubljana: Knezoškofijstvo.] Pohlin, Marko 1783 [1768] Kraynska grammatika. 2nd ed. Laybach: Bernbacher. Stramljič Breznik, Irena 1999 Prispevki iz slovenskega besedoslovja. Maribor: Založba Zora. Stramljič Breznik, Irena 2003 Besedotvorna tipologija novonastalega besedja s področja mobilne telefonije. Slavistična revija 51 (special edition): 105−118. Stramljič Breznik, Irena 2004 Besednodružinski slovar slovenskega jezika, poskusni zvezek za iztočnice na B. Maribor: Slavistično društvo Maribor. Stramljič Breznik, Irena 2005a Kvantitativne lastnosti slovenskega tvorjenega besedja v poskusnem besednodružinskem slovarju za črko B. Slavistična revija 53(4): 505−520. Stramljič Breznik, Irena 2005b Prevzete in domače prvine v slovenskih zloženkah. Jezikoslovni zapiski 11(2): 7−30. Stramljič Breznik, Irena 2010 Tvorjenke slovenskega jezika med slovarjem in besedilom. Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru. Stramljič Breznik, Irena 2011 Contemporary Slovene word-formation and its research perspectives. Seulra'beu eo yeon'gu 16(1): 111−124. Toporišič, Jože 1973 Sestavljenke in izpeljanke iz predložne/proklitične podstave. Slavistična revija 21(1): 105−112. Toporišič, Jože 1976 Besedotvorna teorija. Slavistična revija 24: 163−177. Toporišič, Jože 1976−2004 Slovenska slovnica. 1st−5th ed. Maribor: Založba Obzorja. Toporišič, Jože 1982 Nova slovenska skladnja. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. Toporišič, Jože 1983 Pohlinova slovnica. In: Helga Glušič (ed.), 19. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture, 95−128. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za slovanske jezike in književnosti. Toporišič, Jože 1990 Tretjič o besedotvorni teoriji. Slavistična revija 38(4): 421−440. Toporišič, Jože 1992 Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Toporišič, Jože 1996 Dvojčiči in podobne frazeološke zgradbe v slovenščini. Slavistična revija 44(3): 269− 278. Toporišič, Jože 2006 Besedjeslovne razprave. Ljubljana: Založba Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti.

2998

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Vidovič Muha, Ada 1978 Merila pomenske delitve nezaimenske pridevniške besede. Slavistična revija 26(3): 253− 276. Vidovič Muha, Ada 1981 Pomenske skupine nekakovostnih izpeljanih pridevnikov. Slavistična revija 29(1): 19− 42. Vidovič Muha, Ada 1988 Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloženk. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, Partizanska knjiga. Vidovič Muha, Ada 1993 Glagolske sestavljenke − njihova skladenjska podstava in vezljivostne lastnosti: Z normativnim slovensko-nemškim vidikom. Slavistična revija 41(1): 161−192. Vidovič Muha, Ada 1995 Dva tipološka zgleda normativne vrednosti slovenske besedotvorne morfematike. In: Stanisław Gajda (ed.), Języki słowiańskie 1945−1995. Gramatyka − leksyka − odmiany. Materiały międzynarodowej konferencji naukowej, Opole, 20.−22. 09. 1995 r., 153−165. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, Instytut filologii polskiej. Vidovič Muha, Ada 2009 Skladenjska interpretacija glagolskih predponskih obrazil − vprašanje propozicije. Slavistična revija 57(2): 251−261. Vidovič Muha, Ada 2011 Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje. 2nd ed. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. Vodnik, Valentin 1811 Pismenost ali Gramatika sa perve shole. Ljubljana: Eger. Waszakowa, Krystyna 2005 Przejawy internacjonalizacji w słowotwórstwie współczesnej polszczyzny. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Irena Stramljič Breznik, Maribor (Slovenia)

164. Croatian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Minor processes of word-formation References

Abstract The article gives an introduction to contemporary Croatian word-formation and its research. The most productive word-formation process is suffixal derivation. The parts of speech are described from a formal and semantic viewpoint and illustrated by examples.

164. Croatian

2999

1. Introduction Croatian is a South-Slavic language spoken by ca. 5.5 million people in Croatia (ca. 4 million), in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbian province of Vojvodina, and abroad. Croatian has three dialects: Kajkavian, Čakavian and Štokavian. The standard language is based on the Štokavian dialect. The oldest literary production was based on Church Slavonic and written in the Glagolitic script, e.g., the “Baška tablet” (Bašćanska ploča) from 1100. Croatian vernacular literary texts in Čakavian go back to the 14th century, in Štokavian to the 15th century, and in Kajkavian to the 16th century. The first printed dictionary was Faust Vrančić’s Dictionarium quinque nobilissimarum Europae linguarum: Latinae, Italicae, Germanicae, Dalmati[c]ae et Ungaricae (1595), the first grammar was written by the Jesuit Bartol Kašić (Institutionum linguae illyricae libri duo 1604). Rajmund Đamanjić was the author of the first treatise on Croatian orthography in Latin script (1639). Since the 19 th century there have been attempts to create a common standard language for Croats and Serbs by means of permanent language-policy measures and standardization (cf. Grčević 2002, 2009). Unification was encouraged and actively carried out by all multi-national states in which Croats lived together with Serbs. This resulted in Croatian and Serbian being brought closer together, but not in their unification. A common Croatian-Serbian basic linguistic work that was generally accepted, did not even exist during the period of Yugoslavia. In works on standard Croatian, Croatian was often called “Croatian or Serbian”, because the Communist authorities forbade the consideration of Croatian as a separate language and ordered “Serbian” to be added with the aim of removing the distinction between the two languages. However, different historical currents in the formation of the standard languages of Croats and Serbs, which began in the Middle Ages, proved to be stronger than the desire for unification. Croatian and Serbian (cf. article 165) have remained two independent standard languages, although the level of their typological closeness and correspondence is extremely high and the greatest among all Slavic standard languages. In major contemporary works on Croatian grammar, word-formation has the status of an autonomous grammatical discipline and is dealt with in a separate chapter, in the same way as phonology, morphology or syntax. In the grammar of Silić and Pranjković (2005), it is treated as a constituent part of morphology. In minor Croatian grammars, word-formation is not dealt with at all. In some Croatian secondary school textbooks, it is treated as a part of lexicology. In the past five or six decades synchronic-structuralist word-formation in modern standard Croatian has been researched by Stjepan Babić more than by anyone else. He gave the first complete modern description of Croatian word-formation classified by parts of speech in the school grammar Pregled gramatike hrvatskoga književnog jezika [A Review of the Grammar of Standard Croatian] (Babić and Težak 1973). The book has been regularly re-edited under the title Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika [Grammar of Croatian], cf. Babić and Težak (2004). Babić concluded his research with his major work Tvorba riječi u hrvatskom književnom jeziku [Word-Formation in Standard Croatian] (1986). In this work, he describes in detail the formation of nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs based upon a corpus of 90,000 words (all corpus texts come from Croatian literature). According to Babić’s studies, there are 771 suffixes (including variants such

3000

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

as -ilica, -lica, -ica) and 77 prefixes in Croatian. His treatise of contemporary Croatian word-formation is not only descriptive, but also normatively conceived. Babić’s description of 1973 served as the starting point not only for his major work of 1986, but also for E. Barić’s description of word-formation in Hrvatska gramatika [Croatian Grammar] (Barić et al. 2005 [1979]: 285−371, 387−389). The formation of verbs in this work (pp. 372−386) was dealt with by M. Lončarić. Synchronic-diachronic word-formation in Croatian onomastics has been dealt with primarily by Bjelanović (2007) and Šimunović (2009). The present article is based on Babić’s monograph of 2002 [1986] as the main source for the examples provided here. According to the conception of this handbook, the article differs from Babić’s semasiological description of affixal, especially nominal word-formation. An onomasiological approach, based on word-formation categories, is more characteristic of his treatment of adjectives.

2. General overview The most productive word-formation process in Croatian is derivation: suffixation (raditi ‘to work’ → rad-nik ‘worker’), prefixation (poručnik ‘lieutenant’ → pot-poručnik ‘second lieutenant; lit. sublieutenant’), and circumfixation (bez-um-lje ‘madness; lit. withoutmind-ABSTR’). The activity of affixation is also reflected in the formation of synthetic compounds. Croatian word-formation also recognizes as formants zero suffixes and zero interfixes. Composition on the base of two autonomous words is less productive. More than two lexical morphemes (but not more than three) occur only exceptionally in Croatian compounds. There are numerous phonological alternations, particularly at the boundary between stems and affixes. The most common are assimilations, e.g., pod- + predsjednik − potpredsjednik ‘vice president; lit. sub-president’, iz- + čeznuti − iščeznuti ‘to escape’. There are also numerous (diachronically motivated) vowel and consonant alternations, e.g., hramati ‘to limp’ − hrom ‘lame’, strah ‘fright’ − strašan ‘frightful’, ruka ‘hand’ − ručetina ‘coarse hand’, poslati ‘to send’ − pošiljka ‘parcel’, etc. Elements of Latin and Greek origin (auto-, aero-, agro-; -bus, -drom, -fil, etc.) occur as so-called bound stems or bound lexical morphemes (sometimes also called suffixoids and prefixoids). The term “neoclassical word-formation” is not used. Elements which are modificational, such as anti-, arhi- ‘arch-’, inter-, super-, ultra- are regarded as prefixes. In the literature, a small number of bound stems of Slavic origin are mentioned, e.g., polu- ‘half’, vele- ‘large’, nadri- ‘pseudo-’, and nazovi- ‘quasi-’.

3. Composition Lexical stems are connected either by a linking vowel (in Croatian terminology: interfix), e.g., brod-o-graditelj ‘shipbuilder’, or without one (imendan ‘name day’, gasmaska ‘gas mask’). The interfix is most frequently -o-, occasionally -e-, -i- in exocentric compounds of the type palikuća ‘arsonist; lit. set fire-house’, and -u- in compounds with bratu-

164. Croatian

3001

‘brother-’, polu- ‘half-’ and tisuću- ‘thousand-’. The zero morpheme (-0̸-) is also regarded as interfix. In some compounds a hyphen is used in the function of an interfix, e.g., spomen-dom ‘memorial house; lit. memory-house’, rak-rana ‘cankered wound; lit. canker-wound’, grad-država ‘city state’. Such formations whose components keep their stress and basic meaning are called “semi-compounds”. The notion of “semi-compound” does not only concern word-formation, but also orthography and syntax (therefore there is no generally accepted definition). The division of compounds into endocentric and exocentric is not common in Croatian linguistic literature. It is generally thought that endocentric compounds in Slavic languages are a more recent phenomenon than exocentric compounds. Their emergence is explained by literary production and the influence of foreign languages such as Greek and Latin, Italian, Hungarian, and German (especially in the 18th and 19 th centuries).

3.1. Nominal compounds There are two main types of nominal compounds: the so-called pure compounds consisting of two independent stems/words (kuć-e-vlasnik ‘house owner’), and synthetic compounds (a combination of composition and suffixation, including zero suffixation): pučko-škol-ac ‘elementary scholar’ (← pučka škola ‘elementary school’; *školac does not exist as single word), nogomet (‘football; lit. leg-o-sweep-0̸’), časopis ‘periodical; lit. time-o-write-0̸’ (there is no word *met or *pis). Pure compounds and synthetic compounds with zero suffix are often loan translations of German compounds (from the 19 th century or earlier), but can also be traced back to the influence of Hungarian and other languages.

3.1.1. Determinative compounds Croatian nominal compounds are predominantly determinative. The first stem modifies the meaning of the head. Determinative compounds are divided into two major categories: pure compounds and synthetic compounds. Pure compounds are not as numerous as synthetic compounds. a) Pure compounds comprise the following structural types: N+N: brod-o-graditelj ‘shipbuilder’; A+N: bjel-o-kost ‘ivory; lit. white-o-bone’, brzotisak ‘fast print(ing)’, zloduh ‘demon; lit. evil-spirit’; Pron+N: sam-o-ubojstvo ‘suicide; lit. self-o-murder’, samohvala ‘self-praise’; Num+N: dv-o-vlast ‘diarchy; lit. two-o-power’; pol-u-istina ‘half-truth’. There are also some exocentric compounds, e.g., palikuća ‘arsonist; lit. to set firehouse’, vadičep ‘corkscrew; lit. take out-cork’, gorostas ‘giant; lit. mountain-stature’, nosorog ‘rhinoceros; lit. nose-horn’, etc. Composition seems to be activated by so-called determinative semi-compounds like spomen-ploča ‘memorial plaque’, biser-grana ‘pearl necklace’, džez-orkestar ‘jazz or-

3002

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

chestra’, bruto-prihod ‘gross income’, neto-iznos ‘net amount’, žiro-račun ‘transfer account’, video-zapis ‘video recording’, audio-kaseta ‘audio cassette’. Although the (non)writing of hyphens is sometimes determined only by convention, standard Croatian gives precedence to hyphenated spelling. In Croatian it is neither usual, nor normatively accepted to express an attributive relationship by means of a preposed noun, especially indeclinable foreign words. In recent times, English (and English models) has had an opposite influence on linguistic practice, cf. names such as Motovun film festival instead of the usual adjectival attribution: Motovunski filmski festival. In colloquial expressions and in the language of young people, one can also find denominations such as brak tip (‘marriage type’), or the noun mrak ‘darkness’ in adjectival meaning, e.g., mrak cure (‘cool girls; lit. darkness girls’). Bound stems, mostly of foreign origin, as first or second components are also common, e.g., aerodinamika ‘aerodynamics’, biogeneza ‘biogenesis’, kartoteka ‘card files’, romboid ‘rhomboid’, ekologija ‘ecology’, parkomat ‘parking meter’. b) Synthetic compounds Nominal synthetic compounds can be formed with the zero suffix or with formally expressed suffixes and convey similar categorial meanings as derivatives. They usually have an interfix (o). Formations with v e r b a l s e c o n d s t e m s and a zero suffix are represented by the following types: N+V+0̸: abstract nouns, e.g., zemljopis ‘geography; lit. land-o-describe-0̸’, kitolov ‘whaling; lit. whale-o-catch/hunt-0̸’; concrete nouns: zemljovid ‘map; lit. land-o-see-0̸’, tlocrt ‘ground plan; lit. ground-o-draw-0̸’, nogomet ‘football; lit. foot-o-sweep-0̸’, zrakoplov ‘aircraft; lit. air-o-navigate-0̸’, vodopad ‘waterfall’, vodoskok ‘fountain; lit. water-ojump-0̸’; Adv+V+0̸: brzojav ‘telegram; lit. quickly-announce-0̸’, dalekozor ‘spyglass; lit. farsee-0̸’; Pron+V+0̸ (occasionally): samokres ‘automatic pistol; lit. self-strike fire-0̸, svaštožder ‘omnivore; lit. everything-devour-0̸’; Num+V+0̸: jednopreg ‘one-horse carriage; lit. one-harness-0̸’, dvosjed ‘two-seater’, dvogled ‘binoculars’; Formations with verbal second stems and formally expressed suffixes belong to a broader spectrum of categories, e.g., Abstract nouns N+V+je: bogoljublje ‘devotion; lit. God-o-love-ABSTR’, bogoštovlje ‘worship; lit. God-o-worship-ABSTR’; N+V+ka: čedomorka ‘infanticide; lit. babe-o-murder-ABSTR’; A+V+je: krivosuđe ‘misjudgement; wrong-o-judge-ABSTR’; Pron+N+je: samoljublje ‘self-love’; Result nouns A+V+ina: novotvorina ‘neoplasm; lit new-o-form-SUFF’; N+V+ina: um-o-tvorina ‘masterpiece; lit. mind-o-create-SUFF’. Personal and non-personal animate and inanimate nouns (with agent meaning) N+V+a: kavopija ‘coffee-drinker’; štetočina ‘vermin; lit. damage-o-make-SUFF’; N+V+ac: čovjekomrzac ‘misanthrope; person-o-hate-SUFF’, ledolomac ‘ice-breaker’; N+V+ica: Bogorodica ‘Mother of God; lit. God-o-give-birth-SUFF’; konjokradica ‘horse thief; lit. horse-o-steal-SUFF’ m.;

164. Croatian

3003

N+V+ka: bogomoljka ‘praying mantis; lit. God-o-pray-SUFF’, mišolovka ‘mousetrap’; Adv+V+ka: brzometka ‘repeating rifle; lit. quickly-fire-SUFF’, radodajka ‘easy lay (f.); lit. willingly-give-SUFF’; Num+V+ka: prvotelka ‘cow calving for the first time; lit. first-o-calve-SUFF’; dvorotka ‘tree, plant, bearing fruit twice a year’. Formations with n o m i n a l , a d j e c t i v a l , and n u m e r a l s e c o n d s t e m s and formally expressed suffixes are mostly personal and non-personal nouns, occasionally place nouns, collective and abstract nouns: N+N+je: vinogorje ‘wine-growing hills; N+N+ka: polnoćka ‘midnight mass; A+N+ac: pučkoškolac ‘elementary school pupil’, Crnogorac ‘Montenegrin’ (← Crna Gora ‘Montenegro’); A+N+-aš: crnokošuljaš ‘member of the Blackshirts or other extremist organisations whose followers wear black shirts; lit. black-o-shirt-SUFF’; A+N+ik: krivokletnik ‘perjurer; lit. wrong-o-swearing-oath-SUFF’; A+N+ina: pustopoljina ‘wasteland; lit. abandoned-o-land-SUFF’; A+N+je: bistroumlje ‘clear-mindedness’, nizozemlje ‘lowlands; A+N+ka: bjelouška ‘grass snake; lit. white-o-ear-SUFF’, crnoglavka ‘warbler (bird); lit. black-o-head-SUFF’; Num+N+ac: prvoškolac ‘first-grader; lit. first-o-school-SUFF’, dvomotorac ‘twin-engine plane’; Num+N+aš: drugoligaš ‘second-division team’, dvotaktaš ‘two-stroke engine’; Num+N-ica dvokolica ‘vehicle with two wheels’; Num+N+je: sedmodnevlje ‘week; lit. seven-o-day-SUFF’; Num+N+je: desetljeće ‘decade; lit. ten-0̸-year-SUFF’, dvotočje ‘colon; lit. two-o-pointSUFF’; Num+N+ka: jednočinka ‘one-act play; lit. one-o-act-SUFF’, jednometka ‘single-shot rifle’, osmoljetka ‘primary school; lit. eight-o-year-SUFF’; Num+N+nik: dvoglasnik ‘diphthong’.

3.1.2. Copulative compounds Copulative nominal compounds (e.g., bogočovjek ‘god-man’) are rare and not typical of Croatian word-formation. Nevertheless, some of them can be very common, e.g., strahopoštovanje ‘awe; lit. fear-respect’, cf. German Ehrfurcht. There are some copulative compounds consisting of deverbal nouns (kupnja-prodaja ‘buying and selling’) besides formations with a verbal stem in the first part (V-o-N): kup-o-prodaja ‘buying and selling; lit. buy-o-delivery’, prim-o-predaja ‘delivery; lit. receive-o-delivery’ which are also regarded as copulative compounds. A copulative relationship also exists in (rare) compounds like grad-država ‘city-state’ (i.e. both a city and a state), točka-zarez ‘semi-colon; lit. full stop-comma’, though such compounds differ from other copulative compounds in that their first component is declinable (e.g., genitive: grada-države, točke-zareza).

3004

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

3.2. Adjectival compounds 3.2.1. Determinative adjectival compounds “Pure” adjectival compounds are represented by compounds with bound stems, e.g., polu- ‘semi-’ (polupismen ‘semi-literate’), vele- ‘large(ly)’ (velevrijedan ‘highly valuable’), also visoko- ‘high(ly)’ (visokomoralan ‘highly moral’). The basic meaning is determined by the second stem. Relational compound adjectives are generally formed with -ski-/-čki or -ni. They refer to an A/Num/Pron+N syntagm, e.g., donjogradski (← donji grad ‘lower town’), sjevernoamerički (← sjeverna Amerika ‘North America’), dvotrećinski (← dvije trećine ‘two thirds’), svakonoćni (← svaka noć ‘every night’) or to a N+N-GEN syntagm, e.g., brakorazvodni ‘divorce (adj.)’ (← razvod braka ‘divorce; lit. divorce marriage-GEN’). The latter example can be regarded as a synthetic compound (neither *brakorazvod nor *razvodni exists as independent word). The same applies to the following examples of productive types of synthetic compounds (mainly qualitative adjectives). They are most often derived with the suffix -an or the zero suffix (symbolized as 0̸). When the second stem is nominal, the first is generally an adjective or a numeral. The two components can be linked with a linking vowel (o or e): A+N+SUFF: bistr-o-um-an ‘clear minded’, bjelokos ‘white-haired, krupnozrn ‘coarsegrained’, raznolik ‘varied; lit. different-o-form-0̸’, čovjekolik ‘anthropomorphous’; Adv+N+SUFF: višeslojan ‘multi-layered, višestazan ‘multi-laned’; Pron+N+SUFF: istoimen ‘homonymous; lit. same-o-name-0̸’, višestran ‘multilateral’; Num+N-SUFF: prvorazredan ‘first-class (adj.)’, jednook ‘one-eyed’. The first stem can also be bound, e.g., bifazan ‘biphasic’, bipolaran ‘bipolar’; N+V+SUFF: savjetodavan ‘advisory; lit. advice-o-give-SUFF’, and (occasionally) Pron+V+SUFF: istoznačan ‘synonymous; lit. same-o-mean-SUFF’. Exocentric adjective compounds are of the following types: N+N+0̸: vjetronog ‘fleet-footed; lit. wind-o-foot-0̸’; A+N+0̸: zlatoust ‘eloquent; lit. golden-o-mouth-0̸’ (a calque of Greek chrysostomos); Adv+V+0̸: brzoplet ‘hasty; lit. quickly-o-plait-0̸’; Pron+N+0̸: svojeglav ‘stubborn; lit. own-e-head-0̸’. Exceptionally also: V+N+0̸: vijoglav ‘impetuous; lit. chase-o-head-0̸’, vrtoglav ‘giddy; lit. turn round-ohead-0̸’. There is a number of marginal instances, which are regarded as juxtaposition (merger) of the components of a syntagm, e.g., boguugodan ‘God-pleasing; lit. God-DAT-pleasing’.

3.2.2. Copulative adjectival compounds Copulative compounds connect two adjectives (with or without a linking vowel), e.g., crven-o-plavi ‘red and blue’, crn-o-bijeli ‘black and white’, spoznajn-o-doživljajni ‘cognitive-experiential’; cf. also Babić-Mogušev pravopis ‘Babić’s and Moguš’s Orthography; lit. Babić-Moguš-POSS.ADJ orthography’, rusk-o-ukrajinska granica ‘Russian-

164. Croatian

3005

Ukrainian border’, vojno-politički pregled ‘military and political review’, as opposed to vojnopolitički pregled without a hyphen, which is the adjective to vojna politika ‘military policy’. In such adjectives, only the second stem is declinable. Generally, they are not lexicalized. They are written with hyphens. Lexicalized copulative adjectival compounds (without hyphens) are not numerous, but can be frequent in use, e.g., gluhonijem ‘deaf and mute’, danonoćni ‘night and day (adj.)’, zlopak ‘wicked and evil’.

3.3. Verbal compounds Verbal composition is a marginal means of Croatian word-formation. There are some cases of juxtaposition, e.g., dangubiti ‘to waste time; lit. day-lose’, and circumfixed verbs based on a nominal phrase, e.g., o-dobr-o-volj-iti ‘to cheer up; lit. o-(prefix with ornative meaning)-good-o-will-SUFF’ (← dobra volja ‘good will’), o-zl-o-glas-iti ‘to disparage; lit. o-bad-o-voice-SUFF’ (← zao/zli glas ‘bad reputation’).

3.4. Adverbial compounds Adverbial compounds are mainly represented by pronominal adverbs (e.g., koje-kako ‘somehow, in whatever way; lit. which-how’), by reduplication (e.g., katkada ‘sometimes; lit. when-when’, gdjegdje ‘here and there; lit. where-where’). Numerals can also participate in adverbial compounds with the element put in the meaning ‘time’: jedanput ‘one time’, dvaput ‘two times’. In some cases compounding is accompanied by suffixation: most commonly with the suffixes -ke, -(i)ce, e.g., dvonoške ‘on two legs’ (← dvije noge ‘two legs’), stranputice ‘in the wrong way’ (← stran put ‘strange, wrong way’). For prepositional juxtapositions such as sasvim ‘completely; lit. with-all’, zatim and potom ‘afterwards; lit. after-this’, zato ‘therefore; lit. for-this’, doduše ‘in truth; lit. tosoul’, unazad ‘backwards; lit. to-back’, see also section 4.4. Copulative adverbial compounds are composed of adverbs which generally have opposite meanings. These are written with a hyphen: amo-tamo ‘to and fro’, brže-bolje ‘faster and better’, gore-dolje ‘up and down’, manje-više ‘more or less’, danas-sutra ‘today or tomorrow’, etc.

4. Derivation 4.1. Nominal derivation Stems of derived nouns can go back to various word classes, e.g., nouns (brodovlje ‘shipping’ ← brod ‘ship’), adjectives (mladost ‘youth’ ← mlad ‘young’), verbs (plivanje ‘swimming’ ← plivati). In the majority of cases, grammatical gender can be determined according to the suffix.

3006

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Although individual suffixes are associated with specific meanings and grammatical categories, such correspondences are not absolute. For example, with the suffix -ica it is possible to derive female nouns from masculine nouns (slušateljica ‘female listener’ ← slušatelj), feminine diminutives (curica ‘little girl’ ← cura ‘girl’), non-personal nouns like slikovnica ‘picture book’ (← slika ‘picture’), and nouns that refer to both masculine and feminine persons such as izdajica ‘traitor’ (← izdati ‘to betray’). In individual cases, it is not possible to mark the boundary between suffix and stem with any certainty or to determine whether the stem is nominal, adjectival or verbal, e.g., zlobnik ‘malicious person’ could be analyzed as zlob-nik (N-nik ← zloba ‘malice’) or zlobn-ik (A-ik ← zloban ‘bad, nasty’), or, another example, kradljivac ‘thief’ as kradljivac (V-ljivac ← krasti ‘to steal’) or kradljiv-ac (A-ac ← kradljiv ‘thievish, nimblefingered’).

4.1.1. Denominal nouns Nouns formed with prefixes are less frequent than prefixal-suffixal nouns. Nearly one third of Croatian prefixes are of foreign origin, e.g., anti-, hiper- ‘hyper-’, inter-, etc. The majority of the other prefixes correspond to prepositions, e.g., među ‘between, among’, na ‘on’, nad ‘over’, etc. Prefixes that do not have a corresponding preposition are, e.g., pra- ‘proto-’, pro- ‘through’, raz- ‘dis-, apart’. The negation ne (and the negative conjunction ni) also function as prefixes. Prefixes express n e g a t i o n (ne-sporazum ‘misunderstanding’, disharmonija ‘disharmony’), p r i v a t i v e meaning (a-teizam ‘atheism’, bez-voljnost ‘displeasure’), o p p o s i t i o n or a n t a g o n i s m (antitalent ‘anti-talent’, antikrist ‘Antichrist’, protu-napad ‘counter-attack’, protu-vrijednost ‘countervalue’, protu-dokaz ‘evidence to the contrary’); h i e r a r c h y (nad-moć ‘superior strength’, pod-časnik ‘non-commissioned officer’, do-zapovjednik ‘vice-commander’, pro-rektor ‘pro-vice-chancellor’), t e m p o r a l and l o c a l relations (pra-čovjek ‘prehistoric man’, pred-igra ‘foreplay’, među-igra ‘intermezzo’, pred-govor ‘foreword, preface’, postkomunizam ‘post-Communism’), i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n (hiperinflacija ‘hyperinflation’, superzvijezda ‘superstar’), and others, e.g., su-autor ‘co-author’, su-radnik ‘staff member, co-worker’, pa-zvuk ‘interference noise’, nus-proizvod ‘by-product’. Suffixation is most productive in the formation of nouns. Denominal p e r s o n a l n o u n s denote persons according to their professions, occupations, characteristic features, etc., e.g.: mes-ar ‘butcher’ (← meso ‘meat’), povjesničar ‘historian’ (← povijest ‘history’), gitar-ist ‘guitarist’ (← gitara ‘guitar’), marksist ‘Marxist’. The native suffix -aš is often connected with nominal stems from the field of sports and music, e.g., nogometaš ‘footballer’ (← nogomet ‘football’), orguljaš ‘organist’ (← orgulje ‘organ’). Persons can be also denoted according to a characteristic feature (brk-ajlija ‘man with a long moustache’ ← brk ‘moustache’, the suffix is a Turkism). Denominal names of inhabitants are generally formed with the suffixes -ac or -anin, or less frequently -ak: Nijemac ‘German’, Australac ‘Australian’, Bečanin ‘Viennese’, Bošnjak ‘Bosniak’. From these, the following female forms are derived: Njem-ica, Austral-ka, Bečan-ka, Bošnjak-inja, and Rus → Rus-kinja, Hrvat ‘Croat’ → Hrvat-ica. The suffix -ka is also used to derive f e m a l e personal names from male ones: Ivan →

164. Croatian

3007

Ivanka. Most frequent suffixes for female denominal nouns are -ica and -inja: grofica ‘countess’ (← grof ‘count’), biologinja ‘biologist’ f. (← biolog), svjedokinja ‘witness’ f. (← svjedok). N o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s : snjeg-ović ‘snowman’ (← snijeg ‘snow’), limun-ada ‘lemon juice’ (← limun ‘lemon’), prst-en ‘ring’ (← prst ‘finger’), kap-uljača ‘hood’ (← kapa ‘cap’), sastav-nica ‘component’ (← sastav ‘structure, consistence’), petrolejka ‘petrol lamp’ (← petrolej ‘lamp-oil’), broj-ka ‘numeral’ (← broj ‘number’); Denominal a b s t r a c t n o u n s with the suffix -stvo are frequent: prijateljstvo ‘friendship’ (← prijatelj ‘friend’), državljanstvo ‘nationality’ (← državljanin ‘citizen’), božanstvo ‘divinity’ (← Bog ‘God’); P l a c e n o u n s : kav-ana ‘café’ (← kava ‘coffee’), stroj-arnica ‘engine room’ (← stroj ‘engine’), kokoš-injac ‘henhouse’ (← kokoš ‘hen’), ognj-ište ‘fireplace’ (← oganj ‘fire’), grob-lje ‘cemetery’ (← grob ‘grave’); C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s : osob-lje ‘staff’ (← osoba ‘person’), momč-ad ‘team’ (← momak ‘young man, boy’), cvijeć-e (suffix -je; j causes the palatalization of the final consonant of the stem: t+j > ć) ‘flowers’ (← cvijet ‘flower’), drveć-e (-je) ‘trees’ (← drvet-a (genitive) of drvo ‘tree’), zvjer-ad ‘animals’ (← zvijer ‘animal’), potom-stvo ‘descendants’ (← potomak ‘descendant’); D i m i n u t i v e s (often with the connotation of tenderness and familiarity) of masculine nouns are predominately derived with the suffixes -ić, -ac and -ak (momčić ‘boy’ ← momak ‘guy’, krušac ‘small loaf’ ← kruh ‘bread’, listak ‘leaflet’ ← list ‘sheet of paper’), for feminine nouns the main suffixes end in -ca (grančica ‘twig’ ← grana ‘branch’), while for neuter nouns -ce predominates (brdašce ‘hillock’ ← brdo ‘hill’). The suffix -ka is used in the formation of feminine diminutives (kokoška ‘(small) hen’ ← kokoš ‘hen’, granka ‘(small) branch’ ← grana ‘branch’); A u g m e n t a t i v e s are formed with -ina (brodina ‘big ship’ ← brod ‘ship’). With words in -ina, depending on the stress, there can be a distinction between augmentatives (that often have a pejorative meaning) and types of meat, cf., e.g., konjètina, a pejorative term for a horse (konj) and kònjetina ‘horsemeat’. Nouns derived by circumfixation denote persons, animals, places, etc., e.g., po-morac ‘seaman’ (← more ‘sea’), bes-kril-ac ‘animal without wings’ (← krila ‘wings’), povjetar-ac ‘breeze’ (← vjetar ‘wind’), za-sel-ak ‘hamlet’ (← selo ‘village’), nad-im-ak ‘nickname’ (← ime ‘name’), po-glav-l j e ‘chapter’ (← glava ‘head’), raz-dob-lje ‘period’ (← dob(a) ‘time, period’), bez-[z]akonj-e (-je) ‘lawlessness’ (← zakon ‘law’).

4.1.2. Deadjectival nouns Examples for deadjectival nouns and their suffixes are: A b s t r a c t n o u n s : mlad-ost ‘youth’ (← mlad ‘young’), dostojan-stvo ‘dignity’ (← dostojan ‘dignified’), materin-stvo ‘motherhood’ (← materin ‘mother’s’), prav-ac ‘direction’ (← prav ‘right, correct’), hripav-ac ‘whooping cough’ (← hripav ‘wheezy’), žutica ‘jaundice’ (← žut ‘yellow’), slinavka ‘foot-and-mouth disease’ (← slinav ‘salivary’), upisn-ina ‘registration fee’ (upisan ← ‘registered’), očev-ina ‘patrimony inheritance’ (← očev ‘father’s’), izobilj-e (the suffix -je causes the palatalization of the final consonant of the stem) ‘abundance, exurberance’ (← izobilan ‘large, substantial, pro-

3008

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

fuse’), milosrđ-e ‘mercy’ (← milosrd-an ‘merciful’), poštenje ‘sense of honour’ (← pošten ‘honourable’), zdrav-lje (with epenthetic l before j) ‘health’ (← zdrav ‘healthy’); P e r s o n a l n o u n s : stran-ac ‘foreigner’ (← stran ‘strange’), pijan-ac/pijan-ica ‘alcoholic, drinker’ (← pijan ‘drunken’), nobelov-ac ‘Nobel laureate’ (← Nobelov ‘Nobel’s’; Nobelova nagrada ‘Nobel prize’), mudrac ‘wise man’ (← mudar ‘wise’), intelektual-ac ‘intellectual (person)’ (← intelektualan ‘intellectual’), crn-ka ‘dark woman, brunette’ (← crn ‘black, dark’), čud-ak ‘eccentric’ (← čudan ‘strange’), mučen-ik ‘martyr’ (← mučen ‘tortured’), tup-an ‘fool’ (← tup ‘blunt’), divlj-ak ‘savage’ (← divlji ‘wild’), grub-ijan ‘brute’ (← grub ‘rough’), mlad-ić ‘young man’ (← mlad ‘young’), slab-ić ‘weakling’ (← slab ‘weak’), kraljev-ić ‘prince’ (← kraljev ‘king’s’). Some derivatives in -ić (the suffix is mainly used for diminutives) can express tenderness and irony; N o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s : staklen-ka ‘jar’ (← staklen ‘glass’ adj.), real-ka ‘secondary school’ (← realna škola), zubat-ac ‘Dentex vulgaris’ (fish) (← zub-at ‘toothed’), dokumentar-ac ‘documentary (film)’ (← dokumentaran ‘documentary’), piskav-ac ‘sibilant’ (← piskav ‘fizzy, sibilant’), kruškov-ac ‘pear brandy’ (← kruškov ‘of a pear’), živac ‘nerve’ (← živ ‘living, alive’), bakrenjak ‘copper coin’ (← bakren ‘copreous’), čistina ‘glade’ (← čist ‘clear’), pčelinjak ‘apiary’ (← pčelin ‘bee’ adj.), gorč-ica ‘bitterwort; mustard’ (← gorak ‘bitter’), modr-ica ‘haematoma’ (← modar ‘blue’).

4.1.3. Deverbal nouns Deverbal nouns belong to the following categories: A c t i o n n o u n s : tvor-ba ‘formation’ (← tvoriti ‘to form’), splet-ka ‘intrigue’ (← splesti ‘to intrigue’), kupov-ina ‘buying, purchase’ (← kupovati ‘to buy’), borav-ak ‘stay’ (← boraviti ‘to stay’), blok-ada ‘blockade’ (← blokirati ‘to block’), centralizacija ‘centralization’ (← centralizirati ‘to centralize’), priključ-enje ‘connection’ (← priključiti ‘to connect’), spozna-ja ‘cognition’ (← spoznati ‘to cognize’). The suffix -je is unproductive, e.g., primir-je ‘truce’ (← primiriti ‘to soothe’). The following examples, where the nominal (abstract) meaning is expressed by the ending (-a or zero suffix) are also regarded as results of derivation, not as conversion: dobav-a ‘supply’ (← dobaviti ‘to supply’), zamjen-a ‘replacement’ (← zamijeniti ‘to replace’); napad-0̸ (← present stem napad- of napasti ‘to attack’). A g e n t n o u n s are derived by means of various suffixes, e.g., sluša-telj/sluša-lac ‘listener’ (← slušati ‘to listen’), pis-ac ‘writer’ (← pisati ‘to write’), rad-nik ‘worker’ (← raditi ‘to work’), jah-ač ‘rider’ (← jahati ‘to ride’), zid-ar ‘bricklayer’ (← zidati ‘to build’), etiketir-ka ‘female labeller’ (← etiketirati ‘to label’), pljačk-aš ‘robber’ (← pljačkati ‘to rob’). Nouns with the suffix -onja are pejoratively marked, e.g., žderonja ‘glutton’ (← žderati ‘to gorge’); R e s u l t n o u n s : krivotvor-ina ‘forgery’ (← krivotvoriti ‘to falsificate’), odrez-ak ‘steak’ (← odrezati ‘to cut’), otpad-ak ‘trash’ (← otpasti ‘to fall off’), pec-ivo ‘rolls’ (← peći ‘to bake’), napis ‘inscription’ (← napisati ‘to write (down)’), pis-mo ‘letter’ (← pisati ‘to write’), čestit-ka ‘greeting card’ (← čestitati ‘to greet’), recenz-ija ‘review’ (← recenzirati ‘to review’); O b j e c t n o u n s : čit-anka ‘reader, reading book’ (← čitati ‘to read’), dodat-ak ‘addition, supplement’ (← dodati ‘to add’), cit-at ‘quotation’ (← citirati ‘to quote, cite’).

164. Croatian

3009

Stems in some deverbal object nouns can be interpreted as passive (adjective) stems, e.g., čitan-ka. Numerous personal object nouns are formed from passive adjectives, e.g., ranjen-ik ‘wounded person’ (← raniti ‘to wound’), kažnjen-ik ‘punished person’ (← kazniti ‘to punish’); I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : cjep-ivo ‘vaccine’ (← cijepiti ‘to vaccinate’), označi-lac ‘marker’ (← označiti ‘to mark’), sluša-lica ‘headphone’ (← slušati ‘to listen’), per-ilica ‘washing machine’ and ‘dishwasher’ (← stem per- of prati ‘to wash’), pis-ač ‘printer’ (← pisati ‘to write’), valj-ak ‘roller’ (← valjati ‘to roll’), crp-ka ‘pump’ (← crpsti ‘to pump’), ventil-ator ‘fan, ventilator’ (← ventilirati ‘to ventilate’), uspor-nik ‘sleeping policeman; lit. lying policeman’ (← usporiti ‘to slow down’); P l a c e n o u n s : kupa-onica ‘bath room’ (← kupati se ‘to take a bath, bathe’), sjedište ‘seat’ (← sjediti ‘to sit’), naselj-e (suffix -je with j palatalizing the final l of the stem where it is reflected in spelling) ‘settlement’ (← naseliti ‘to settle’).

4.2. Adjectival derivation Adjectival word-formation is considered to be the most complicated topic in Croatian derivation. In older Croatian grammar guides, adjectives are divided into descriptive, material and possessive. Today, they are generally divided into relational (including possessive adjectives with the suffixes -in, -ov, -ev; -(s)ki, -ni, -ji, -ći) and descriptive or qualitative (-an, -en, -av, -at, -ast, -iv, -it, -ak, -cat, -ast). The suffix -ski is one of the most productive adjectival suffixes. The adjective porculan-ski in porculanska šalica ‘porcelain cup’ is a relational adjective (cf. the synonymous expression šalica od porculana ‘a cup of porcelain’), but in porculanska industrija ‘porcelain industry’ it is regarded as a descriptive adjective. When adjectives with suffixes of relational adjectives have a figurative meaning, e.g., mačje (-ji) oči ‘cat’s eyes’, they are regarded as belonging to the category of descriptive adjectives (expression of similarity). In Croatian, there exist indefinite and definite forms of descriptive adjectives: dobar − dobri ‘good’, crn − crni ‘black’, crven − crveni ‘red’. Indefinite descriptive adjectives with the suffix -an have definite correlations with the suffix -ni (krasan − krasni ‘wonderful’). The relational adjective from mrak ‘darkness’ is mračni, but in mračni dan ‘dark day’ mračni is a descriptive adjective in its definite form. This is the reason why in dictionaries and old grammars the suffixes -an and -ni are poorly differentiated, if at all. Unambiguous demarcation between relational and descriptive adjectives on formal criteria is not possible in all cases.

4.2.1. Denominal adjectives Suffixes are connected with individual stems according to formal or semantic criteria. In the majority of cases, different suffixes serve a semantic differentiation, e.g., generalov (possessive adj.) ‘general’s’ − general-ski ‘related to generalship’. However, there are some variants of relational adjectives with a variety of suffixes that do not involve any semantic difference: akustični − akustički ‘acoustic’, imenični − imenički ‘nominal’, fleksijski − fleksivni ‘inflectional’. Some relational adjectives can refer to different nouns

3010

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

with an identical root, e.g., kovački refers to kovač ‘blacksmith’ and kovanje ‘forge, forging’, and the adjective filozofski ‘philosophical’ to both filozof ‘philosopher’ and filozofija ‘philosophy’. There is also an adjective filozofijski ‘philosophical’ (derived from filozofija), but it is not used systematically. The choice of the suffix can be affected by the discrimination of synonyms. The most frequent relational adjective derived from the noun izvor ‘spring’ is today izvorski (izvorska voda ‘spring water’, not izvorna voda) because the adjective izvorni is the definite form of the descriptive adjective izvoran ‘original’. Stems of descriptive adjectives are most frequently nominal, but they can also be derived from other word classes, including verbs. Examples: limun-ov sok ‘lemon juice’, jabuč-ni sok ‘apple juice’, krav-lji sir ‘cheese from cow’s milk’, zagreb-ački trg ‘square in Zagreb’, pristup-ni podatak ‘access information’, benzin-ski motor ‘gasoline engine’, zim-ski/ljet-ni dan ‘winter/sommer day’, živč-an ‘tense, nervous’ (← živac ‘nerv’), bakr-en ‘cupreous’ (← bakar ‘copper’). Adjectives expressing possessive meaning, are, for instance, pljesn-iv ‘mouldy’ (← plijesan ‘mould’), tajn-ovit ‘mysterious’ (← tajna ‘secret’), bradavič-av ‘warty’ (← bradavica ‘wart’); the suffix -at is combined with the meaning of abundance, e.g., nosat ‘nosy’ (← nos ‘nose’). The suffix -ast expresses similarity, e.g., bradavič-ast ‘papillary’ (← bradavica ‘wart’), etc. Prefixal-suffixal denominal adjectives are motivated by prepositional phrases, e.g., bez-idej-an ‘uninspired’ (← bez ideje ‘without an idea’), bez-imen-0̸ ‘nameless’ (← bez imena ‘without name’), preko-mor-ski ‘overseas’ (← preko mora ‘over seas’), do-slovan ‘literally’ (← do slova ‘verbal; lit. to the word’), ispod-prosječ-an ‘below average’ (← ispod prosjeka ‘below the average’).

4.2.2. Deadjectival adjectives Prefixation modifies the meaning in various ways, e.g., n e g a t i o n : ne-iskren ‘dishonest’; d e p r i v a t i o n : bez-gotovinski ‘cashless’; a u g m e n t a t i o n : pre-bogat ‘very rich’, pre-divan ‘wonderful’ (← divan ‘beautiful’); d i m i n u t i o n , a t t e n u a t i o n : nagluh ‘hard of hearing’ (← gluh ‘deaf’), o-manji ‘smallish’ (← manji ‘smaller’), poveći ‘largish’ (← veći ‘larger’), priglup ‘simple-minded’ (← glup ‘silly’); i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n : pro-hladan ‘chilly’ (← hladan ‘cold’), su-lud ‘insane’ (← lud ‘mad’). The prefixation of a superlative with po- reduces the level of intensification: po-najbolji ‘one of the best’ (← najbolji ‘best’). Suffixation conveys a p p r o x i m a t i v e , d i m i n u t i v e and a u g m e n t a t i v e (intensifying) meaning: maglen-ast ‘fog-like, not clear’ (← maglen ‘foggy’), srebren-ast ‘silver-like, silvery’ (srebren ‘silver’ adj.); crven-kast ‘reddish’ (← crven ‘red’), gork-ast ‘bitterly’ (← gorak ‘bitter’), slab-ašan ‘weakly, weakish’ (← slab ‘weak’); pun-cat ‘brimful’ (← pun ‘full’). In some deadjectival adjectives with different suffixes there is no evidence of modificational or semantic shift, e.g., mlač-an ‘lukewarm’ (← mlak ‘id.’).

4.2.3. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal prefixal adjectives are semantically related to the action of the verb. Prefix derivatives are formed with the negation ne- + passive participle (“verbal adjectives” in

164. Croatian

3011

Croatian grammatical terminology): neangažiran novinar ‘disengaged journalist’, neviđen slučaj ‘unprecedented case’, neprepoznat potencijal ‘unrecognized potential’. Productive suffixes are only -iv and -av, which often convey a modal meaning (possibility): dodir-ljiv ‘touchable’ (← dodirnuti ‘to touch’), smrd-ljiv ‘smelly’ (← smrdjeti ‘to stink’), blist-av ‘glistening’ (← blistati ‘to glitter’). Other suffixes are rare, e.g., pitak ‘drinkable’ (← piti ‘to drink’), domišlj-at ‘imaginative’ (← domišljati se ‘to think’), srd-it ‘angry’ (← srditi se ‘to be angry’), krivud-ast ‘curved, winding’ (← krivudati ‘to meander’), diš-ni put ‘respiratory tract’ (← disati ‘to breathe’), poslov-an čovjek ‘businessman’ (← poslovati ‘to operate’). Some deverbal adjectives are derived from participles: izuzet-an ‘exceptional’, poduzet-an ‘enterprising’. The suffix -aći in deverbal adjectives is unproductive, brij-aći ‘shaving’ (← brijati ‘to shave’), kup-aći ‘swimming’ (← kupati ‘to bathe’). Some deverbal adjectives with different suffixes have one and the same meaning: smrd-ljiv − smrd-ljav ‘smelly’, krivud-av − krivud-ast ‘curved, winding’, znoj-av − znojan ‘clammy’ (← znojiti se ‘to sweat’), in non-standard čit-ljiv − čit-ak ‘readable’ (← čitati ‘to read’).

4.3. Verbal derivation 4.3.1. Denominal verbs Denominal verbs are formed with suffixes in -ati and -iti. Their meaning is related to the base noun. Most common are the following categories: a) b) c) d) e)

‘to be N’: kralj-evati ‘to reign’ ← kralj ‘king’; ‘to become N’: hrđ-ati ‘to rust’ (← hrđa ‘rust’); ‘to turn into N’: komad-ati ‘to cut up into pieces’ (← komad ‘piece’); ‘to do/make N’: snijež-iti ‘to snow’ (← snijeg ‘snow’); ‘to act with N’: vag-ati ‘to weigh’ (← vaga ‘scales’), bubnj-ati ‘to drum’ (← bubanj ‘drum’), telefon-irati ‘to phone’ (← telefon ‘phone’), lak-irati ‘to varnish, paint’ (← lak ‘varnish, lacquer’), memor-irati ‘to memorize’ (← memorija ‘memory’); f) ‘to spend N’: noć-iti ‘to spend the night’ (← noć ‘night’); g) ‘to have N’: tug-ovati ‘to mourn’ (← tuga ‘sadness’).

4.3.2. Deadjectival verbs Deadjectival verbs are formed with suffixes in -ati, -jeti, and -iti, often combined with prefixation, and express the following meanings: a) ‘to become A’: star-jeti ‘to grow old, age’ (← star ‘old’), po-siv-jeti ‘to turn grey’ (← siv ‘grey’); b) ‘to make A’: o-crn-iti ‘to blacken’ (← crn ‘black’), ravn-ati ‘to flatten’ (← ravan ‘flat’), ljut-iti ‘to annoy’ (← ljut ‘angry’). The meaning ‘to be A’ can be expressed by the addition of se to causative verbs, e.g., ljutiti se ‘to be angry’ (← ljut-iti ‘to annoy’).

3012

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.3.3. Deverbal verbs Verbs formed by prefixation are generally perfective and are derived from imperfective verbs, e.g., na-praviti ‘to have done’ (← praviti ‘to do’). Prefixation therefore largely overlaps with the perfectivization of imperfective verbs. Perfectivization is also carried out with the help of the suffix -nuti, e.g., vik-ati (ipf.) ‘to shout’ → vik-nuti (pf.), and (rarely) by alternation in roots (sometimes called “internal formation”), e.g., okopati (pf.) ‘to dig up’ → okapati (ipf.) ‘to hoe’. Some verbs are biaspectual, e.g., de-mobilizirati ‘to demobilize’. Although prefixal verbs are derived only from verbal stems, they represent more than half of all verbs. Prefixes modify the meaning of stems in relation to a s p e c t and a k t i o n s a r t. Prefixes in perfective verbs mark the b e g i n n i n g (na-gorjeti ‘to (begin to) burn’), the c o m p l e t i o n (iz-gorjeti ‘to (completely) burn, burn out’), or the e x t e n t of the action (is-spavati se ‘to sleep long enough, sleep in’, pre-soliti ‘to oversalt’), different t e m p o r a l d e l i m i t a t i o n (pro-sjediti ‘to spend some time sitting’), i n s t a n t a n e o u s action (po-ljubiti ‘to kiss once’), c u m u l a t i v e actions (po-strijeljati ‘to shoot down a lot of people’, na-kupovati ‘to buy a lot of sth.’), d i r e c t i o n a l and l o c a t i v e delimitation (ot-plivati ‘to swim to’, is-plivati ‘to swim out’, pre-plivati ‘to swim through’, o-plivati ‘to swim around’, do-nijeti ‘to bring’, od-nijeti ‘to carry away’, pre-nijeti ‘to take from one place to another’ (all from nositi ‘to carry’)). Distributive and cumulative verbs are derived by prefixation of already prefixed verbs: po-zatvarati ‘to close one by one’ (← za-tvarati ‘to close’), iz-opijati ‘to get completely drunk’ (← o-pijati ‘to get drunk’). Stems of prefixal verbs may be bound, e.g., -četi: po-četi ‘to begin’. Derivatives may obtain more or less metaphorical or euphemistic meanings, e.g., po-baciti ‘to have a miscarriage’ (← baciti ‘to throw’). Suffixes are used to form imperfective verbs from perfective verbs: zapovjed-iti (pf.) ‘to order’ → zapovijed-ati (ipf.) ‘to be in command’, kazn-iti (pf.) → kažnj-avati (ipf.) ‘to punish’, doves-ti (pf.) (present stem doved-) → dovod-iti (ipf.) ‘to bring’, prepis-ati (pf.) → prepis-ivati (ipf.) ‘to copy’. Imperfective verbs may be the base for the further derivation of iterative verbs (also ipf.), e.g., iskak-ati ‘to jump out’ → iskak-ivati ‘to jump repeatedly out’, čast-iti ‘to regale, pay for sb.’ → čašć-ivati ‘to often, regularily regale, pay for sb.’. Some verbs express the development of an action in small steps (“diminutive verbs”), tuž-akati ‘to tell tales against’ (← tužiti ‘to denunciate’), lup-karati ‘to give repeated small blows’ (← lupati ‘to throb’), čup-kati ‘to pluck’ (← čupati ‘to tousle’). The postfix se conveys reflexive meaning or serves the formation of intransitive counterparts of transitive verbs, e.g., povećati se ‘to become larger, increase’ (← povećati ‘to enlarge’).

4.4. Adverbial derivation Adverbs can be derived by prefixation, e.g., ne-rado ‘unwillingly’ (← rado ‘willingly’), ne-gdje ‘somewhere’ (← gdje ‘where’), i-gdje ‘anywhere’ (← gdje ‘where’), pre-kasno ‘too late’ (← kasno ‘late’), bound adverbial stems do-vde ‘up to here’, do-kle ‘how far’. Pronominal (i-kako ‘anyhow’) and prepositional stems (s-kroz ‘totally’ ← kroz ‘through’) are rare.

164. Croatian

3013

Adverbs can also be formed by juxtaposition of prepositions + nouns in the instrumental case (za redom → zaredom ‘in a row’, sa svim ‘with all’ → sasvim ‘completely’). Productive adverbial suffixes are -ce, -ice, -ke. The stems can be nominal: primjerice ‘for example’ (← primjer ‘example’), jutr-os ‘this morning’ (← jutro ‘morning’); adjectival: pojedin-ce ‘apart’ (← pojedin ‘single’); verbal: šut-ke ‘silently’ (← šutiti ‘to be silent’); adverbial: neprestan-ce ‘constantly’ (← neprestan ‘constant’), strmoglav-ce ‘steeply’ (← strmoglavo ‘headlong’), natraš-ke ‘backwards’ (← natrag ‘back’); numeral: jedn-oć ‘once’ (← jedan ‘one’). Adverbs can go back to the instrumental case of nouns, e.g., slijedom ‘subsequently’ (← slijed ‘sequence’), nesrećom ‘unfortunately’ (← nesreća ‘misfortune’), cf. section 5. In prefix-suffix formations (circumfixation) the stems may be nominal: na-leđ-ice ‘on one’s back’ (← leđa ‘back’), bez-obzir-ce ‘inconsiderately; lit. without-considerationSUFF’ (← obzir ‘consideration’), bes-prestan-ce ‘unceasingly; lit. without-cessationSUFF’ (← prestanak ‘cessation’); adjectival: po-sam-ce ‘individually’ (← sam ‘alone’).

5. Conversion Nouns, adjectives and adverbs can be formed by conversion, whereas verbs cannot. There are isolated cases of prepositions being the result of conversion, e.g., pomoću ‘by means of’, which is the instrumental of the noun pomoć ‘help’. Some prepositions are formed by merger of two prepositions: ispred ‘in front of’ (← iz pred lit. ‘from before’), and prepositions and nouns: namjesto ‘in place of’ (← na mjesto lit. ‘on place’). Isolated examples of conversion can also be found among interjections, particles and conjunctions.

5.1. Nominal conversion Conversion from adjectives gives rise to many toponyms and names of countries, such as Hrvatska ‘Croatia’ (← hrvatska zemlja ‘Croatian land’), and, analogically, Njemačka ‘Germany’, Engleska ‘England’. Surnames with the adjective suffix -ski (like Đalski) also belong here. Individual common nouns as, e.g., mlada ‘bride’ (← mlada ‘young’ f.) and velečasni ‘reverend’ (← velečasni ‘high(ly) estimated’) are also converted from adjectives. The nouns zeleni ‘the Greens’, umrli ‘the deceased’, and rođeni ‘newborns’ are pluralia tantum from adjectival plural forms. The nouns umrli and rođeni are converted from a specific class of adjectives which in grammars are described as verbal forms, i.e. as active and passive verbal adjectives (corresponding to past participles). Nouns converted from adjectives are inflected according to the declension of adjectives.

5.2. Adjectival conversion Adjectives such as leteći ‘flying’, e.g., in leteći tanjur ‘flying saucer’, sljedeći ‘following’ in sljedeći čovjek ‘the following person’, and prjeteći ‘threatening’ in prjeteće pismo

3014

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

‘threatening letter’, are considered to be converted from verbal adverbs (gerunds): leteći, slijedeći, prijeteći. Such adjectives can individually be common and frequent, but their formation and use are restricted, for example, *radeći čovjek ‘working man’ is not possible, only čovjek koji radi ‘a man who works’.

5.3. Adverbial conversion Adverbs are often formed by conversion from neuter forms of adjectives (nedavno ‘recently’, potiho ‘quietly’, brže ‘quickly’), including comparatives and superlatives (bolje ‘better’, najbolje ‘best’, najbrže ‘most quickly’). The conversion of the nominal instrumental into adverbs has already been mentioned (cf. section 4.4), e.g., podrijetlom ‘originally’ (← podrijetlo ‘origin’). There are some examples with both separate and compound spelling (na primjer − naprimjer ‘for example’). Some Croatian normativists give priority to writing them separately, and others to juxtaposing them. In most cases, however, the different spelling signalizes differences in meaning, e.g., sasvim zadovoljan ‘completely satisfied’ − sa svim zadovoljan ‘satisfied with everything’.

6. Minor processes of word-formation B a c k f o r m a t i o n is typical of hypocoristic personal names and other hypocoristics like djeva ‘young girl’ (← djevica ‘id.’), gospa ‘lady’ (← gospođa ‘id.’), lasta ‘swallow’ (← lastavica ‘id.’); in works on Croatian word-formation, they usually are explained as derivatives in -a with a truncated stem. R e d u p l i c a t i o n is rare in Croatian word-formation. It occurs mostly in the formation of adjectives and adverbs with an intensifying function (for other cases see section 3.4). The reduplicated (or partially reduplicated) elements are usually followed by a suffix: cijel cjelcat ‘completely; lit. complete complete-SUFF’, bijel bjelcat ‘completely white’, crn crncat ‘completely black’, jedva jedvice ‘barely’, vjekovječan ‘eternal’, danodnevni ‘day in day out’ (← dan ‘day’ and dnevni ‘daily’ adj.), dandanas ‘nowadays’ (← dan ‘day’ and danas ‘today’). A special case are verbal semi-compounds with two verbal components (e.g., imperative, temporal forms) with opposite (or similar) meanings. However, they do not belong to the standard register: povuci-potegni ‘push and pull’, htio-ne htio ‘whether one want’s to or not; lit. (he) wanted, didn’t want’, reklakazala ‘gossip, chit-chat; lit. she said, she told’. B l e n d i n g is rare. Blends appear mostly in newspapers or internet sites, in the advertising language and in names of products or companies: Zaba (company name) ← Zagrebačka banka ‘Zagreb bank’, Krašotice (product name of cakes) ← Kraš (company name) + krasotice ‘beauties’, klinceza ‘little girl’ ← klinka ‘little girl’ + princeza ‘princess’, rakijadler ‘mix of brandy and shandy (radler)’ ← rakija ‘brandy’ + radler ‘mix of beer and lemonade’ (Germ.), maspok ‘Croatian political movement in the beginning of the 1970s’ ← masovni pokret ‘mass movement’. C l i p p i n g occurs in the form of omitted morphemes, e.g., svilokos-0̸ ‘silken-haired’ (← svilena kosa ‘silken hair’), sedmostruk ‘sevenfold’ (← sedmero (collective num.)

164. Croatian

3015

struk), inopartner ‘foreign partner’ (← inozemni partner). The clipping of roots, e.g., lis-ica → lija ‘fox’ is rare. By means of the clipping of stems + suffixation, stylistically marked words are formed: Dalmoš (← Dalmatinac) ‘a Dalmatian’, studoš (← student) ‘student’, faks (← fakultet) ‘faculty’. Sometimes abbreviations may be followed by a suffix (iks-ica (also X-ica) ← iks ← identifikacijska kartica studenta ‘student’s identity card’ + -ica). Examples of w o r d - c r e a t i o n are also rare, cf. in Zagreb youth slang bed-ara ‘boredom’, probably derived from English bad, or the permutation of syllables in vopi (← pivo ‘beer’). Occasionalisms in poetry or in the language of contemporary Croatian newspapers mostly follow existing word-formation models, e.g., pro-njež-i-ti ‘to make gentle’ (← nježan ‘gentle, sensitive’), od-nebes-i-ti se (← nebo/nebesa ‘heaven(s)’) ‘to fall from heaven’ (Anka Žagar); manjin-ci (pl.) ‘representatives of national minorities in Croatian parlament’ (← manjin-a ‘minority’ + suffix -ci, pl. of -ac), vrtić-arci ‘children in kindergarten’ (← vrtić ‘kindergarten’ + -arci, pl. of -arac, an unproductive suffix), de-tuđman-izacija ‘detudjmanization; political ideology against Croatian national and state autonomy’ (← Tuđman, the founder and first president (1990−1999) of the Republic of Croatia), bankariti (from an advertising of a bank) ‘to bank’ (← banka ‘bank’ + suffix -ariti), lajkati ‘to like’ (← lajk (< Engl. like) + verbal suffix -ati).

7. References Babić, Stjepan 2002 [1986] Tvorba riječi u hrvatskome književnome jeziku. 3rd ed. Zagreb: HAZU, Globus. Babić, Stjepan and Stjepko Težak 1973 Pregled gramatike hrvatskoga književnog jezika. 6th ed. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Babić, Stjepan and Stjepko Težak 2004 Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. 14th ed. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Barić, Eugenija 1980 Imeničke složenice neprefiksalne i nesufiksalne tvorbe. Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber. Barić, Eugenija, Mijo Lončarić, Dragica Malić, Slavko Pavešić, Mirko Peti, Vesna Zečević and Marija Znika 2005 [1976] Hrvatska gramatika. 4th ed. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Bjelanović, Živko 2007 Onomastičke teme. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada. Đamanjić, Rajmund 1639 Nauk za dobro pisati latinskijem slovima riječi jezika slovinskoga. Venetia: Marco Ginammi. Grčević, Mario 2002 Some remarks on recent lexical changes in the Croatian language. In: Radovan Lučić (ed.), Lexical Norm and National Language. Lexicography and Language Policy in South-Slavic Languages after 1989, 150−163. München: Sagner. Grčević, Mario 2009 Jernej Kopitar kao strateg Karadžićeve književnojezične reforme. Filologija 53: 1−53. Grubišić, Vinko 2007 Croatian Grammar. 2nd ed. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada. Hudeček, Lana, Milica Mihaljević and Bruno Nahod 2009 Hrvatski terminološki priručnik. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje. Nacionalna zaklada za znanost.

3016

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Kapetanović, Amir 2007 Jesu li endocentrične imeničke složenice tvorbena inovacija u hrvatskom jeziku 19. stoljeća? Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 33: 235−243. Kašić, Bartol 1604 Institutionum linguae illyricae libri duo. Roma: Aloysius Zannetus. Kuna, Branko 2007 Nazivlje u tvorbi riječi. Filologija 46−47: 165−182. Marković, Ivan 2009 Tri nehrvatske tvorbe: Infiksacija, reduplikacija, fuzija. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 35: 217−241. Marković, Ivan 2010 Hrvatske koordinativne složenice. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 36: 71−95. Mihaljević, Milica and Ermina Ramadanović 2006 Razradba tvorbenih načina u nazivlju. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 32: 193−211. Muhvić-Dimanovski, Vesna 2005 Neologizmi. Problemi teorije i primjene. Zagreb: FF press. Samardžija, Marko 1998 Hrvatski jezik 4. Udženik za 4. razred gimnazije. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Silić, Josip and Ivo Pranjković 2005 Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za gimnazije i visoka učilišta. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Šimunović, Petar 2009 Uvod u hrvatsko imenoslovlje. Zagreb: Golden marketing − Tehnička knjiga. Tafra, Branka and Petra Košutar 2009 Rječotvorni modeli u hrvatskom jeziku. Suvremena lingvistika 67: 87−106. Turk, Marija 2002 Tvorbene značajke kalkova. Fluminensia 14(1): 47−66. Turk, Marija and Maja Opašić 2008 Linguistic borrowing and purism in the Croatian language. Suvremena lingvistika 65: 73−88. Vrančić, Faust 1595 Dictionarium quinque nobilissimarum Europae linguarum: Latinae, Italicae, Germanicae, Dalmati[c]ae et Ungaricae. Venetia: Nicolaus Morettus.

Mario Grčević, Zagreb (Croatia)

165. Serbian

3017

165. Serbian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Minor processes of word-formation References

Abstract The article provides a short review of word-formation in contemporary Serbian. Almost all procedures of word-formation are presented: the productive ones (affixation, composition) as well as those that have a marginal role in the word-formation system.

1. Introduction The Serbian literary language, which can be traced from the end of the 12th century, developed under the condition of diglossia (Serbian Slavonic and Serbian vernacular language until the 18th century), and later even in the form of triglossia (Russian Slavonic, Serbian vernacular and so-called Slavic-Serbian as a kind of language amalgam) in the 18th and in the first half of the 19 th centuries. This polyglossic language situation was solved in the following way: Russian Slavonic was preserved as the sacral language in the Serbian Orthodox Church, Serbian Slavonic was absolutely superseded, and the Serbian vernacular language (with the grammatical and lexical structure of the most widespread Serbian dialect) obtained the role of the literary language. This language revolution was carried through by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić. In a short period, Vuk Stefanović Karadžić published a grammar (Stefanović 1814) and a dictionary with over 26,000 entries (Stefanović 1818). This lexical material, stemming primarily from the author’s native dialect, served as a basis for the first study of Serbian word-formation (Stefanović Karadžić 1828). In this work, suffixation and the composition of nouns and adjectives were presented following the example of Dobrovský’s Czech grammar (1809). During the 19 th century, word-formation was included in the diachronic-etymological study of words (Daničić 1876; Novaković 1894). A grammar with a comprehensive chapter on word-formation appeared only at the very end of the 19 th century (Maretić 1899). At that time it was the most complete description of word-formation, based on Vuk Stefanović Karadžić’s corpus. To a great extend, the same corpus became the basis of a description of the Serbian grammatical system published by the German Slavist Leskien (1914): the word-formation means of the various parts of speech were not described in one chapter, but separately for nouns and adjectives, and for verbs. The first book on Serbian word-formation comprising the composition and the derivation of nouns

3018

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

and adjectives appears in the first half of the last century (Belić 1931); composition and derivation of all word classes were described in Belić (1949). Half a century after Leskien’s grammar, a new grammar with an extensive part on word-formation based on more recent lexical data, was published by Stevanović (1984). Word-formation has also been described in school grammars (e.g., Stevanović 1971; Stanojčić and Popović 2008). First monographs with a comparative-historical orientation were published by Belić (1901, 1904) and Bošković (1936). A significant part of the latter was dedicated to the so-called nominal motion in South-Slavic languages. This subject, based on the material found in historical dictionaries, was later elaborated in a monograph (Ćorić 1982). Within the framework of studies on language contact, the influence of German on Serbian wordformation was described by Rammelmeyer (1975). Subjects of monographs that appeared at the end of the last and at the beginning of this century are, among others: word-formation categories, e.g., place nouns, agent and instrument nouns (Kiršova 1998 and 1999), word-formation of various parts of speech, e.g., prefixation of nouns (Radović Tešić 2002), nominal word-formation (Ćorić 2008), and suffixes of Turkish origin (Radić 2001). A comprehensive synthetic study on word-formation in Serbian, based on previous studies as well as on more recent lexicographic material, was published by Klajn (2002, 2003). In addition, several hundreds of larger or smaller studies, discussions and articles containing different theoretical questions and pragmatic aspects of word-formation have also been published.

2. General overview Traditionally, two means of word-formation are distinguished in Serbian studies: composition (including prefixation) and derivation (suffixation). In more recent times, prefixation has been extricated from composition and included in derivation. Apart from these basic means of word-formation other types of combinatorial processes exist such as prefixal-suffixal and compositional-suffixal patterns, among others. Under the influence of foreign philologists, the idea of complex formants, so-called circumfixes, has been introduced. Postfixation (in Slavic word-formation defined as the addition of a derivational morpheme that follows the inflectional ending) is a minor phenomenon in Serbian word-formation. There is only one postfix: -god (expressing indefiniteness and functionally corresponding to the Russian postponed elements -to, -libo, -nibud’). The derivatives are motivated by interrogative-relative pronouns and adverbs: kogod ‘somebody’ (← ko ‘who’), štogod, štagod ‘something’ (← što, šta ‘what’), kad/a/god ‘sometimes’ (← kad/a ‘when’), etc. (Ćorić 2010). Since the beginning of research, so-called morphological word-formation (derivation and composition) has occupied a dominant place in Serbistics. Recently, also other types of formations are studied more intensively, for instance, conversion (earlier identified by terms like nominalization, adjectivization, etc.), backformation (rederivation), juxtaposition, etc. Structures that originated as a result of condensation (so-called univerbation, in Slavic word-formation defined as a combination of ellipsis and suffixation, e.g., nuklearka ← nuklearna elektrana ‘nuclear plant’) were included in the domain of research as well as phenomena of internationalization (the expansion of foreign prefixes and suffixes, prefix-

165. Serbian

3019

oids and suffixoids, and structures with neoclassical components, and in this context the appearance of hybrid formations like prevarant ‘faker’ ← prevariti ‘to cheat’, pseudonauka ‘pseudoscience’), and also feminization tendencies, i.e. the spreading of so-called gender motion formations in the domain of professions, ranks and titles as, e.g., rektorka ‘woman rector’ (Ćorić 2008). Word-formation processes are often accompanied by different sound alternations (sometimes combined with the simplification of sound clusters), which can be illustrated by pairs of derivatives with the same formant, e.g, pretkomora vs. predznak, beznađe vs. bespuće, raskrupnjati vs. razdragati, etc. Even more variety is found in the alternations on the boundary between root/stem and suffix: k:č (muka ‘pain’ → muč-an ‘painful’), c:č (konac ‘thread’ → konč-an ‘threadlike’), g:ž (snaga ‘strength’ → snaž-an ‘strong’), h:š (siromah ‘pauper’ → siromaš-an ‘poor’), sk:šč (daska ‘board, plank’ → dašč-ara ‘hut’), d:đ (grad ‘town’ → građ-anin ‘citizen’), t:ć (bez puta ‘without way’ → bespuć-e ‘hopelessness’), n:nj (bez zakona ‘without law’ → bezakonj-e ‘lawlessness’), st:šć (list ‘leaf’ → lišć-e ‘foliage’), ž:š (podržati ‘to support’ → podrš-ka ‘support’), z:ž (voziti ‘to drive’ → vož-nja ‘driving’), b:blj (ljubiti vlast ‘to love power’ → vlast-o-ljublj-e ‘craving for power’), v:vlj (zdrav ‘healthy’→ zdravlj-e ‘health’), st:št (izrasti ‘to grow’ → izrašt-aj ‘growth’), etc. The Serbian standard language is characterized by two descendants of the protoSlavic vowel jat, i.e. two ways of pronunciation and spelling of [ě]: as e in the so-called Ekavian variant (reč ‘word’, žuteti ‘to turn yellow’), and as ije/je in the so-called Ijekavian variant (riječ, žutjeti). (Hereafter, this variation, as well as others, will be marked with a slash, i.e. žut/j/eti = žuteti and žutjeti ‘to turn yellow’; reč/riječ ‘word’).

3. Composition 3.1. Introduction From the genetic point of view, composition as a process of word-formation has developed in Serbian under the influence of other languages. This process was initiated by Church Slavonic as a literary (supraregional) idiom that was rich in compounds going back to Greek models (cf. also article 115 on historical word-formation in Slavic). Serbian compounds (calques) of the type bogoslov ‘theologian’, bogorodica ‘Blessed Virgin; lit. god-bear-AGENT.FEM’, blagorodan ‘noble’, etc. belong here. Later, from the 16th century, it was the centuries-old direct contact with the Ottoman language that lead to the borrowing of (before that time) unknown juxtaposed structures like đul-bašta ‘rose garden’, today mostly archaisms. Nevertheless, as a word-formation model, they have played a catalytic role in the acceptance of similar formations from European languages. The first among these was German, cf. compounds of the type maskenbal ‘masquerade ball’, later veš-mašina ‘washing machine’, toalet-papir ‘toilet paper’, balon-svila ‘balloon silk’, termos-boca ‘thermos bottle’, žiro-račun ‘giro account’, etc. German (but also Hungarian) word-formation models are particularly productive in cookery (cf. rum-torta ‘rum cake’, krompir-paprikaš ‘potato stew’, etc.). In the 20th century, English compound structures appear in Serbian, first in sports discourse (boks-meč ‘boxing match’), and after World War II in other spheres of life

3020

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

(rok-muzika ‘rock music’, bikini-kostim ‘bikini; lit. bikini-suit’, kamp-prikolica ‘camping-trailer’, etc.). A special group is constituted by structures stemming from Greek and Latin, the first and other parts of which, generally, do not appear as independent words. We find them primarily in the scientific style: antropo- ‘anthropo-’, bio-, makro‘macro-’, mono-, nitro-, piro- ‘pyro-’, pseudo-, etc., and -grafija ‘-graphy’, -drom, -fil ‘-phile’, -fob ‘-phobe’, -fobija ‘-phobia’, -skop ‘-scope’, -teka ‘-theque’, etc. In the last decades, as a result of globalization processes in almost all spheres of life, a new wave of preposed components arrived, among them video-, demo-, neo-, porno-, retro-, super-, hit-, etc. Numerous neologisms have been formed, whose second components can also be domestic words (top-model, top-igrač ‘top player’, folk-muzika ‘folk music’, folk-zvezda ‘folk-star’). In Serbistics the term compound was traditionally defined as a word consisting of two stems/words (with one accent) the meaning of which cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituents. This is mostly true for older exocentric compounds such as vukòdlak ‘werwolf’ (← vuk ‘wolf’ + dlaka ‘hair’), etc. Later, endocentric compounds like pȁrobrōd ‘steam boat’ (← para ‘steam’ + brod ‘boat’), or coordinative compounds such as gluvonem ‘deaf-mute’ (← gluv ‘deaf’ + nem ‘mute’) appeared mostly under the influence of foreign languages, primarily German. In general, composition is characteristic of nouns and adjectives, and less typical of other word classes.

3.2. Nominal compounds 3.2.1. Determinative compounds There are two ways of forming nominal determinative compounds: stem/word composition and composition combined with suffixation. Stem/word composition is not productive in Serbian. Actually, the majority of such compounds have originated from foreign models. “Pure” compounds have a simple or a derived noun as head and a noun, adjective, numeral (in special types also a verb) functioning as modifiers. A linking vowel (interfix) appears as a formant. The formation of compounds with a non-derived noun as head is not productive; the corresponding compounds denote inanimate objects: par-o-brod ‘steam-boat’ (Germ. Dampfschiff), see also nov-o-govor analogous to Engl. Newspeak. The only pronominal modifier is sam ‘self’, which appears in a series of compounds in the form samo-, most frequently as an equivalent to foreign auto-, and could also be considered as a prefixoid (cf. samokontrola and autokontrola ‘self-control’). Compounds with a derived noun as head are much more productive, cf. nouns denoting persons (brod-o-vlasnik ‘ship owner’, Germ. Schiffseigner), actions (mašin-o-gradnja ‘mechanical engineering’, Germ. Maschinenbau), and abstract notions (v/j/er-o-ispov/ij/est ‘Creed’, Germ. Glaubensbekenntnis), etc. Numerous compounds can be found among the names of companies with a proper name as modifier (and zero-interfix), as, e.g., Beogradput ‘Belgrade road building company’ (← Beograd ‘Belgrade’, put ‘road’), etc. So-called imperative compounds (named after the formal identity with the imperative sg. in -i) have a verbal stem as their first component, while the formant is (synchronical-

165. Serbian

3021

ly) the interfix -i-, cf. formations in which the second, nominal, constituent has the function of a syntactic object, as in the exocentric compound gul-i-kož-a ‘bloodsucker’ (← guliti kožu ‘to peel the skin’), and a smaller group in which the nominal constituent has the function of the syntactic subject, as in the zoonym smrd-i-buba ‘stink bug’ (← buba koja smrdi ‘bug that stinks’). A particular type of compound is based on the juxtaposition of two words as in names of towns (Beograd ← beo ‘white’, grad ‘town’), names of saints’ days (Đurđevdan ‘St. George’s Day’), etc. In scientific terminology, one can frequently find structures of the type “bound lexical morpheme + noun” (usually of foreign origin, referred to as “neoclassical compounds” in other articles of this handbook): aeromehanika ‘aeromechanics’, agrotehnika ‘agricultural engineering’, autopilot ‘autopilot’, biohemija ‘biochemistry’, diskogroznica ‘discofever’, elektromagnet ‘electromagnet’, fotohemija ‘photochemistry’, geofizika ‘geophysics’, motonautika ‘motonautics’, narkoekonomija ‘drug economy’, etc. Structures of the type “noun-o-bound lexical morpheme” are to some extent rarer: dijalektologija ‘dialectology’, leksikografija ‘lexicography’, germanofobija ‘Germanophobia’, slovenofil ‘Slavophile’, etc. Sometimes, both constituents are bound morphemes: aerodrom ‘airport’, hidrobus ‘hydrobus’, termogram ‘thermogram’, etc. Since earlier times, Serbian has had appositive compounds of the type spomen-ploča ‘memorial plaque; lit. commemoration plaque’, vagon-restoran ‘dining car; lit. coachrestaurant’, etc., but their number has increased in the last decades. Affixation is the basic word-formation means in Serbian, which also participates in the formation of nominal compounds, i.e. composition (with the interfix -o-, more rarely -e-) is combined with suffixation (Klajn 2002: 40; Stanojčić and Popović 2008: 166; see also article 33 on synthetic compounds in German). Neither the combination of the first two nor of the last two elements exists as independent word. Their formal and semantic structure is heterogeneous: N+V+-ac and N+V+-ja: agent nouns (žen-o-mrz-ac ‘misogynist’, pism-o-noš-a ‘postman; lit. letter-o-carrier’); N+V+-ja: abstract nouns, designations of states (zub-o-bolj-a ‘toothache’); N+V+-je: action nouns (vlast-o-ljublj-e ‘craving for power; lit. power-o-loveABSTR’); N+V+-stvo: abstract quality (gost-o-prim-stvo ‘hospitality; lit. guest-o-receiveABSTR’); N+V+-0̸: instrument nouns (visin-o-m/j/er-0̸ ‘altimeter’), place nouns (ugljen-o-kop-0̸ ‘coal mine pit’), personal nouns (rod-o-ljub-0̸ ‘patriot’; lit. tribe-o-love-0̸’), abstract nouns (krv-o-tok-0̸ ‘bloodstream’), action and result nouns (ruk-o-pis-0̸ ‘manuscript’); A+N+-ac and A+N+-aš: personal nouns (srednj-o-škol-ac ‘high school student; lit. middle-school-PERS’, srednj-o-prug-aš ‘middle-distance runner’); A+N+-je: abstract noun (prav-o-v/j/er-je ‘orthodoxy’); Num+N+-ka: designations of objects (dv-o-c/ij/ev-ka ‘double barreled shotgun’); Num+N+-je: designations connected with time (tr-o-m/j/eseč-je ‘trimester’); Num+N+-aš: personal nouns denoted according to a characteristic feature (dv-ometr-aš ‘two meter tall man’); Num+N+-stvo: abstract nouns (dv-o-žen-stvo ‘bigamy’); Num+V+-0̸: designations of objects (dv-o-s/j/ed ‘twoseater’);

3022

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Num+V+-ac and Num+V+-0̸: male personal nouns (e.g., prv-o-tim-ac ‘first team player; lit. first-team-PERS’); Num+V+-ka: female personal nouns (prv-o-rot-ka ‘primipara’).

3.2.2. Copulative compounds Copulative compounds with the interfix -o- are quite rare: bogočovek ‘Jesus Christ; lit. God-man’ (← bog ‘God’, čovek ‘man’), strahopoštovanje ‘awe’ (← strah ‘fear’, poštovanje ‘esteem’, cf. Germ. Ehrfurcht), primopredaja ‘handover’ (← primanje ‘receiving’, predaja ‘conveyance’), geographical names like Austrougarska ‘Austria-Hungary’ (← Austrija ‘Austria’, Ugarska ‘Hungary’), etc. Formations with a weaker lexicalization are radio-televizija ‘radio-television’, džin-tonik ‘gin tonic’.

3.3. Adjectival compounds 3.3.1. Determinative compounds Determinative adjectival compounds are formed by different models. Adjectival compounds with an interfix and without a suffix are rare: A+A: tamn-oplav ‘dark blue’; N+A: krv-o-žedan ‘bloodthirsty’. Compounds with an interfix and a suffix are productive. They can be compared with the so-called synthetic compounds (see article 33 on synthetic compounds in German), where (with a few exceptions) neither the combination of the first two nor of the last two elements exists as free word: N+N+SUFF: rib-o-lik-0̸ ‘resembling a fish’ (← riba ‘fish’, lik ‘image, form’), brakorazvod-an ‘divorce (adj.)’ (← razvod braka ‘divorce of a marriage’); N+V+SUFF: bilj-o-žder-0̸ ‘herbivore’ (← bilje ‘herbs’, žderati ‘to eat voraciously’), zlat-o-nos-an ‘auriferous’ (← zlato ‘gold’, nositi ‘to carry’), istin-o-ljub-iv ‘truthful’ (← istina ‘truth’, ljubiti ‘to be fond of’), gost-o-prim-ljiv ‘hospitable’ (← gost ‘guest’, primiti ‘to receive’); A+N+SUFF: crn-o-kos-0̸ ‘with black hair’ (← crna kosa ‘black hair’), srednj-o-evropski ‘Middle European’ (← srednja Evropa ‘Middle Europe’), razn-o-boj-an ‘varicolored’ (← razni ‘different’, boja ‘color’), slatk-o-r/j/eč-iv ‘honeymouthed’ (← sladak ‘sweet’, reč/riječ ‘word’), nov-o-godi-šnji ‘New Year’s’ (← nov ‘new’, godina ‘year’), suv-omes-nat ‘of smoked meat’ (← suv ‘dry’, meso ‘meat’); Num+N+SUFF: dv-o-grb-0̸ ‘two-humped’ (← dva ‘two’, grba ‘hump’), dv-o-metarski ‘two-meter’ (← dva ‘two’, metar ‘meter’), dv-o-sloj-an ‘twofold’ (← dva ‘two’, sloj ‘layer’), dv-o-smisl-en ‘ambiguous’ (← dva ‘two’, smisao ‘meaning’); Num+V+SUFF: dv-o-znač-an ‘ambiguous’ (← dva ‘two’, značiti ‘to mean’), prvoplasir-an ‘first placed’ (← prvi ‘first’, plasirati ‘to place’); Indef.Num+N+SUFF: mnogo-lik+-0̸ ‘multiform’ (← mnogo ‘many’, lik ‘image, form’); V+N+SUFF: vrt-o-glav-0̸ ‘vertiginous’ (← vrteti ‘to turn’, glava ‘head’);

165. Serbian

3023

Pron+N+SUFF: ov-o-stran-0̸ ‘of this side’ (← ova strana ‘this side’); svoj-e-glav-0̸ ‘stubborn’ (← svoja glava ‘one’s own head’), svoj-e-ruč-an ‘manu propria’ (← svoja ‘own’, ruka ‘hand’); Pron+V+SUFF: sv-e-žder-0̸ ‘omnivore’ (← sve ‘everything, all’, žderati ‘to devour’), sv-e-obuhvat-an ‘comprehensive’ (← sve ‘everything, all’, obuhvatiti ‘to encompass’), cf. also the neologism sam-o-finansiraju-ći ‘self-financing’ (← sam se finansirati ‘to finance oneself’). Compounds with a suffix and without an interfix: Indef.Num+N+SUFF: mnogo-sprat-an ‘multi-storeyed’ (← mnogo ‘many’, sprat ‘storey’); Adv+V+SUFF: daleko-vid-0̸ ‘farsighted’ (← daleko ‘far’, vid/j/eti ‘to see’), brzo-hodan ‘high-speed’ (← brzo ‘quickly’, hodati ‘to walk’), lako-misl-en ‘light-minded’ (← lako ‘easily’, misliti ‘to think’). Compounds formed by merger of the components without formal markers: starmali ‘precocious child’ (← star ‘old’, mali ‘little’), znatiželjan ‘curious’ (← znati ‘to know’, željan ‘eager’).

3.3.2. Copulative compounds Formations with the interfix -o- are productive: gluv-o-n/ij/em ‘deaf-mute’ (← gluv ‘deaf’, nem/nijem ‘mute’), dug-o-silazni ‘long-falling’ (a term for an accent-type: long vowel with falling accent, e.g., â in čâst ‘honour’) (← dugi ‘long’, silazni ‘falling’), srpsk-o-hrvatski ‘Serbo-Croatian’ (← srpski ‘Serbian’, hrvatski ‘Croatian’).

4. Derivation Derivation is the most basic word-formation means in Serbian: it includes suffixation, prefixation and circumfixation. In Serbistics, analytic processes like reflexivization are not included in word-formation. Over the course of time, old suffixes obtained variants which increased their number. Sometimes the variants became competitors to the original suffix or even acquired a special meaning or function in the word-formation system. Thus, the suffixes -inja and -kinja became rivals, and the latter, the secondary suffix, became the basic means in the formation of nouns denoting female beings when the stem of the noun ends in t (studentkinja ‘woman student’). In addition, the secondary diminutive -čić competed strongly with its genetic relative (the suffix -ić), displacing it even from formations whose stems end in a sonorant: (stan-čić ‘small apartment’, automobil-čić ‘small car’, tramvaj-čić ‘small tramcar’, motor-čić ‘small engine, small motorcycle’, ašov-čić ‘small shovel’, etc.). The polyfunctional suffix -ina has been displaced from some semantic groups and replaced by the suffix -čina in the formation of augmentatives and pejoratives (žandarčina ‘lowbrow gendarme’), and the suffix -etina has become productive in the formation of nouns denoting products of animal origin (svinj-etina ‘pork’) and augmentatives (glav-etina ‘big head’), while the suffix -čanin is used in the formation of inhabitant names (Valjev-čanin ← Valjevo, name of a town in Serbia), etc.

3024

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.1. Denominal nouns 4.1.1. Prefixation Besides the autochthonous prefixes, prefixal morphemes of Greek and Latin origin participate in the word-formation of Serbian. The status of the latter is not unanimously determined: some authors consider them as prefixes, while others regard them as prefixoids. Their number suddenly increased at the end of the last and the beginning of this century, primarily under the influence of English. Both prefixes and prefixoids can be attached to both native and foreign stems/roots, modifying their meaning in different ways (cf. Radović Tešić 2002): a) Negation/opposition: de/z/- (dezinformacija ‘disinformation’, dekoncentracija ‘deconcentration’), ne- ‘not, non’ (neplivač ‘non-swimmer’), protiv- ‘against, counter-’ (protivnapad ‘counterattack’), kontra- ‘counter-’ (kontranapad ‘counterattack’), a‘without’ (amoral ‘amorality’); b) Localization/hierarchy: među- ‘between’ (međusprat ‘mezzanine, intermediate storey’), nad- ‘over, above’ (nadšumar ‘head forester’, natčovek ‘superman’), pod- ‘under, beneath, below’ (potkošulja ‘undershirt’, podstanar ‘subtenant’), pred- ‘before, in front of’ (predznak ‘foretoken, omen’, pretkomora ‘antechamber’, pretekst ‘pretext’), pra- ‘proto-’ (pračovek ‘protohuman’), po- ‘after’ (pomajka ‘foster mother’), post- (postkomunizam ‘post-communism’), re- (reizbor ‘reappointment’); c) Comitative meaning: su- ‘with’ (sustanar ‘co-tenant’), sa- ‘with’ (saigrač ‘teammate, playmate’), ko- ‘co-’ (kopilot ‘copilot’); d) Inveracity: nadri- ‘quasi, pseudo’ (nadriknjiževnik ‘quasi-writer’), nazovi- ‘pseudo’ (nazovinauka ‘pseudoscience’), kvazi- ‘quasi-’ (kvazinaučnik ‘quasi-scientist’), pseudo- (pseudonauka ‘pseudoscience’), para- (paraolimpijac ‘paraolympic’); e) Intensity: super- (superanaliza ‘super-analysis’), ekstra- ‘extra’ (ekstraprinos ‘additional yield’), ultra- (ultranacionalista ‘ultra-nationalist’), hiper- ‘hyper-, over-’ (hiperproizvodnja ‘overproduction’), arhi- ‘arch-’ (arhilažov ‘excessive liar’), polu‘half’ (polubrat ‘half brother, sibling’), mega- (megazvezda ‘megastar’); f) Partiality: pro- (prosrbin ‘a pro-Serb’); g) Incidental phenomena: nuz- ‘by’ (nuzzarada ‘sideline salary’, nusprihod ‘sideline income’), sub- (supkultura ‘subculture’), etc.

4.1.2. Suffixation Suffixation is the basic means of noun formation. It is characterized by a multitude of word-formation categories, types and suffixes. A b s t r a c t n o u n s : pobratim-stvo ‘spiritual brotherhood’ (← pobratim ‘spiritual brother’), profes-ura ‘professorship’ (← profesor ‘professor’), doktor-at ‘doctorate’, svinj-arija ‘nastiness’ (← svinja ‘pig’), majstor-luk ‘masterstroke’ (← majstor ‘master, usually artisan’), mao-izam ‘Maoism’, cf. also neologisms like rakij-ada ‘brandy show’ (← rakija ‘brandy’) (Ćorić 2008: 52−61). A special group is constituted by derivatives with the meaning of a c t i o n n o u n s although they are not derived from verbs. The base word can be a common noun, as in estrad-izacija ‘spreading out showbiz’ (←

165. Serbian

3025

estrada ‘showbiz’), a proper name, as in irak-izacija ‘acquiring Iraqi characteristics’ (← Irak ‘Iraq’), or an acronym: VIP-izacija ‘spreading out status of Very Important Persons in social relations’ (Ćorić 2008: 55); P e r s o n a l n o u n s : a) names of professionals and sportsmen: parket-ar ‘parquet installer’ (← parket ‘parquet’), saobraćaj-ac ‘patrolman’ (← saobraćaj ‘traffic’), poreznik ‘tax gatherer’ (← porez ‘tax’), harmonik-aš ‘accordionist’ (← harmonika ‘accordion’), telefon-ist/a/ ‘telephonist’ (← telefon ‘telephone’), terap-eut ‘therapist’ (← terapija ‘therapy’), tenis-er ‘tennis player’ (← tenis ‘tennis’), duvan-džija ‘tobacconist’ (← duvan ‘tobacco’), zanat-lija ‘handicraftsman’ (← zanat ‘craft’), reviz-or ‘reviser’ (← revizija ‘revision’); b) names of persons having a particular affinity to notions denoted by the base word: afer-aš ‘person frequently involved in affairs’ (← afera ‘affair’), detaljist/a/ ‘person paying attention to details’ (← detalj ‘detail’), sup-aroš ‘person that likes soups’ (← supa ‘soup’); c) names of persons characterized by what is named in the base: brad-onja ‘bearded man’ (← brada ‘beard’), brk-ajlija ‘mustached man’ (← brk ‘mustache’), ulič-ar ‘vagabond’ (← ulica ‘street’); d) names of followers of an idea, a leader, etc.: mao-ist/a/ ‘maoist’ (← Mao), hegel-ijanac ‘Hegelian’ (← Hegel), pitagorejac ‘a follower of Pythagoras’ (← Pitagora), vuk-ovac ‘a follower of Vuk’s language reform’ (cf. section 1) (← Vuk); e) names of members of a group, party, etc.: hor-ist/a/ ‘member of a choir’ (← hor ‘choir’), levič-ar ‘leftist’ (← levica ‘political left’), frakcionaš ‘member of a political party faction’ (← frakcija ‘political faction’), partij-ac ‘party member’ (← partija ‘party’), sindik-alac ‘member of a trade union’ (← sindikat ‘trade union’), partizan-ovac ‘sympathizer of the football club “Partizan”’ (← Partizan ‘Partisan’), SPS-ovac (pronunciation espeesov-ac) ‘member of the Socialist Party of Serbia’ (← SPS); f) names of inhabitants: Beograđ-anin ‘Belgradian’ (← Beograd ‘Belgrade’), Kozar-čanin ‘inhabitant of Kozara’ (← Kozara), Amerik-anac ‘an American’ (← Amerika), Kin-ez ‘a Chinese’ (← Kina ‘China’), Niš-lija ‘inhabitant of Niš’ (← Niš, town in Serbia), etc. N o n - p e r s o n a l - n o u n s : a) products of animal origin: goved-ina ‘beef’ (← govedo ‘head of cattle’), praset-ina ‘piglet meat’ (← prase ‘piglet’), konj-etina ‘horse meat’ (← konj ‘horse’), som-ovina ‘catfish meat’ (← som ‘catfish’); b) names of meals, drinks: krompir-uša, krompir-ača ‘potato pie’ (← krompir ‘potato’), kupus-ara ‘cabbage pie’ (← kupus ‘cabbage’), sir-nica ‘cheese pie’ (← sir ‘cheese’), mak-ovača ‘strudel with poppy seeds’ (← mak ‘poppy’), šljiv-ovica ‘plum brandy’ (← šljiva ‘plum’), kruškovača ‘pear brandy’ (← kruška ‘pear’), limun-ada ‘lemonade’ (← limun ‘lemon’); c) names of objects serving as instruments of an action: par-njača ‘steam engine’ (← para ‘steam’), jedr-enjak ‘sailboat’ (← jedro ‘sail’), benzin-ac ‘gasoline engine (mostly cars)’ (← benzin ‘gasoline’), dizel-aš ‘diesel engine (mostly cars)’ (← dizel ‘diesel’); d) names of documents: smrt-ovnica ‘death certificate’ (← smrt ‘death’); e) others as, e.g., daščara ‘hut made of planks’ (← daska ‘plank’), slam-arica ‘straw mattress’ (← slama ‘straw’); P l a c e n o u n s : sajm-ište ‘fairground’ (← sajam ‘fair’), šećer-ana ‘sugar refinery’ (← šećer ‘sugar’), cement-ara ‘cement plant’ (← cement ‘cement’), mes-nica ‘butcher’s shop’ (← meso ‘meat’), vrb-ak ‘ground covered with willows’ (← vrba ‘willow’), šljivik ‘ground covered with plum-trees’ (← šljiva ‘plum-tree’), golub-arnik ‘dovecote’ (← golub ‘dove, pigeon’), pčel-injak ‘apiary’ (← pčela ‘bee’), duvan-džinica ‘tobacco shop’ (← duvan ‘tobacco’), patrijarš-ija ‘Patriarchate’ (← patrijarh ‘Patriarch’), sekretar-ijat ‘secretariat’ (← sekretar ‘secretary’);

3026

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

C o l l e c t i v e n o u n s : građan-stvo ‘citizenry’ (← građanin ‘citizen’), lišć-e ‘foliage’ (← list ‘leaf’), partizan-ija ‘partisans’ (← partizan), episkop-at ‘episcopacy’ (← episkop ‘bishop’), problem-atika ‘problems’ (← problem), tel-ad ‘calves’ (← tele ‘calf’), dugm-ad ‘buttons’ (← dugme); S i n g u l a t i v e s are a rare phenomenon, e.g.: slam-ka ‘a stalk of straw’ (← slama ‘straw’), trav-ka ‘a stalk of grass’ (← trava ‘grass’); Nouns expressing s i m i l a r i t y : pantljič-ara ‘tapeworm’ (← pantljika ‘tape’), glavica ‘rounded hill’ (← glava ‘head’); D i m i n u t i v e s : jezer-ce ‘lakelet’ (← jezero ‘lake’), pset-ance ‘puppy’ (← pseto ‘dog’), dugm-ence ‘a small button’ (← dugme), korit-ašce ‘small trough, infant bathtub’ (← korito ‘trough, bathtub’), jagnj-ešce ‘lambkin’ (← jagnje ‘lamb’), grad-ić ‘small town’ (← grad), podrum-čić ‘small cellar’ (← podrum), kafan-ica ‘little café’ (← kafana ‘coffee room’), brež-uljak ‘hillock’ (← breg/brijeg ‘hill’), plam-ičak ‘tiny flame’ (← plamen ‘flame’). The diminutives are frequently marked with affection − with sympathy as sestr-ica ‘dear sister’ (← sestra ‘sister’), or irony as profesor-čić ‘little professor’ (← profesor ‘professor’). Nouns denoting y o u n g b e i n g s are derived by means of the suffixes -e, e.g., đač-e ‘little student’ (← đak ‘student’), d/j/evojč-e ‘little, young girl’ (← d/j/evojka ‘girl’), and -če, e.g., majmun-če ‘little monkey’ (← majmun ‘monkey’). A special group of expressive formations (hypocoristics) is represented by denominal derivatives denoting persons and animals: their suffixes have two regionally marked forms, as bra-ca/bra-co ‘dear brother’ (← brat ‘brother’), ze-ka/ze-ko ‘bunny’ (← zec ‘rabbit’). A u g m e n t a t i v e s are often connected with the expression of the speaker’s subjective attitude: ruč-erda ‘big hand’ (← ruka ‘hand’), nož-urda ‘big foot’ (← noga ‘foot’), trav-uljina ‘big grass’ (← trava ‘grass’), brad-ina ‘big beard’ (← brada ‘beard’); vojničina, with three semantic nuances: augmentative ‘big soldier’, pejorative ‘rude soldier’, expressive ‘real soldier’ (← vojnik ‘soldier’). Nouns of f e m a l e p e r s o n s and a n i m a l s are represented by the following types: kopač-ica ‘woman digger’ (← kopač ‘digger’), lav-ica ‘lioness’ (← lav ‘lion’), rektorka ‘woman rector’ (← rektor ‘rector’), junak-inja ‘heroine’ (← junak ‘hero’), studentkinja ‘woman student’ (← student ‘student’). Forms of non-official family names for women, e.g., Petrović-ka and Petrović-eva are motivated by the official male names (← Petrović).

4.1.3. Circumfixation Some linguists consider derivatives consisting of a prepositional phrase and a suffix as products of the so-called combined, prefixal-suffixal word-formation (Klajn 2002: 204; Stanojčić and Popović 2008: 148−149, 168−169), other linguists regard them as a product of circumfixation (Matijašević 2009: 321−324), and still others as a result of suffixation (Marojević 2005: 753−755). These formations are very productive in Serbian and belong to different categories: bezemlj-aš ‘landless peasant’ (← bez zemlje ‘without land’), beskuć-nik ‘homeless man’ (← bez kuće ‘without house’), beskril-ci ‘wingless insects’ (← bez krila ‘without wings’), beznađ-e ‘hopelessness’ (← bez nade ‘without hope’), bespuć-e ‘wasteland’ (← bez puta ‘without road’), bezakonj-e ‘lawlessness’ (bez

165. Serbian

3027

zakona ‘without law’); dovrat-ak ‘doorpost’ (← do vrata ‘next to the door’); izmagl-ica ‘mist’ (← iz ‘from, of’, magla ‘fog’); međuvođ-e ‘land between rivers’ (← među ‘between’, voda ‘water’); nadlakt-ica ‘upper arm’ (← nad ‘above’, lakat ‘elbow’); naprstak ‘thimble’ (← na prstu ‘on the finger’), naruč-je ‘armful’ (← na rukama ‘on the hands’); ogran-ak ‘branch’ (← o grani ‘on the branch’), ogrl-ica ‘necklace’ (← o grlu ‘on the neck’); okovrat-nik ‘collar’ (← oko vrata ‘around the neck’); podbrad-ak ‘chin’ (← pod bradom ‘under the beard’), podlakt-ica ‘forearm’ (← pod laktom ‘under the elbow’), podoč-njak ‘dark circle (under the eye)’ (← pod okom ‘under the eye’), podmor-je ‘seabed’ (← pod morem ‘under the sea’); pokož-ica ‘scarf-skin’ (← po koži ‘on the skin’), poned/j/elj-ak ‘Monday’ (← po ned/j/elji ‘after Sunday’); predgrađ-e ‘suburb’ (← pred gradom ‘in front of the city’); prikraj-ak ‘sidelines’ (← pri kraju ‘at the end’); ukos-nica ‘hairpin’ (← u kosi ‘in the hair’); uzglav-ak ‘pillow’ (← uz glavu ‘at the head’), uzreč-ica ‘byword’ (← uz r/ij/eč ‘by, at the word’); vanzemalj-ac ‘alien’ (← van zemlje ‘outside Earth’); zagor-je ‘backwoods’ (← za gorom ‘behind a forest’), zabrđ-e ‘land behind a mountain’ (← za brdom ‘behind a mountain’), zanokt-ica ‘cuticle’ (← za noktom ‘behind the nail’), zav/j/etr-ina ‘lee’ (← za v/j/etrom ‘behind the wind’), etc. A case of an unanimously accepted circumfixation is represented by the following examples: anti-alkohol-izam ‘movement opposing to use of alcohol’, anti-autonom-aš ‘person with anti-autonomy attitude’, hiper-vitamin-oza ‘state resulting from excessive intake of vitamins’.

4.2. Deadjectival nouns A b s t r a c t n o u n s : star-ost ‘(old) age’ (← star ‘old’), brz-ina ‘quickness’ (← brz ‘quick’), skup-oća ‘expensiveness’ (← skup ‘expensive’), dobr-ota ‘goodness’ (← dobar ‘good’), bos-otinja ‘barefootedness’ (← bos ‘barefooted’), zl-oba ‘malice’ (← zao ‘malicious’), lukav-stvo ‘trickiness’ (← lukav ‘tricky’), lukav-ština ‘trick’ (← lukav ‘tricky’), lud-ilo ‘madness’ (← lud ‘mad’), zdravlj-e ‘health’ (← zdrav ‘healthy’), totalitar-izam ‘totalitarianism’ (← totalitaran ‘totalitarian’), legitim-itet ‘legitimacy’ (← legitiman ‘legitimate’), bezobraz-luk ‘impudence’ (← bezobrazan ‘impudent’), etc. P e r s o n a l and n o n - p e r s o n a l n o u n s : kriv-ac ‘culprit’ (← kriv ‘culpable’), jadn-ik ‘wretch’ (← jadan ‘miserable’), glup-ak ‘fool’ (← glup ‘foolish’), dug-onja ‘very tall man’ (← dug ‘long’), nov-ajlija ‘novice, newcomer’ (← nov ‘new’), glup-an ‘dimwit’ (← glup ‘stupid’), bogat-aš ‘rich man’ (← bogat ‘rich’), slab-ić ‘weakling’ (← slab ‘weak’); trudn-ica ‘pregnant woman’ (← trudan ‘pregnant’); siv-onja ‘gray ox’ (← siv ‘gray’), teretnj-ak ‘freighter’ (← teretni ‘freight’), etc.

4.3. Deverbal nouns Deverbal nouns of various categories are formed by suffixation (including zero-suffixation). A c t i o n n o u n s : baca-nje ‘throwing’ (← bacati ‘to throw’), izuze-će ‘exemption’ (← izuzeti ‘to exempt’), pokuš-aj ‘an attempt’ (← pokušati ‘to attempt’), prolaz-0̸ ‘passage’ (← prolaziti ‘to pass by’), borav-ak ‘stay’ (← boraviti ‘to stay’), privatiz-acija

3028

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

‘privatization’ (← privatizovati ‘to privatize’), mas-aža ‘massage’ (← masirati ‘to massage’), žur-ba ‘hurry’ (← žuriti se ‘to hurry’), plov-idba ‘navigation’ (← ploviti ‘to navigate’), škrip-a ‘creaking’ (← škripati ‘to creak’), izda-ja ‘betrayal’ (← izdati ‘to betray’), krađ-a ‘stealing, theft’ (← krasti ‘to steal’), bubnj-ava ‘drumming’ (← bubnjati ‘to drum’), zvonj-ava ‘ringing, tolling’ (← zvoniti ‘to ring, toll’), grab-ež ‘despoilment’ (← grabiti ‘to grab’), kupov-ina ‘purchase’ (← kupovati ‘to purchase’), otim-ačina ‘plunder’ (← otimati ‘to plunder’), podrš-ka ‘support’ (← podržati ‘to support’), vožnja ‘driving’ (← voziti ‘to drive’), blok-ada ‘blockade’ (← blokirati ‘to block’), trening ‘training’ (← trenirati ‘to train’), etc. A g e n t n o u n s − masculine: pliv-ač ‘swimmer’ (← plivati ‘to swim’), pis-ac ‘writer’ (← pisati ‘to write’), gleda-lac ‘spectator’ (← gledati ‘to watch’), snima-telj ‘cameraman’ (← snimati ‘to record’), predvod-nik ‘leader’ (← predvoditi ‘to lead’), žderonja ‘glutton’ (← žderati ‘to guttle’), demonstr-ant ‘demonstrator’ (← demonstrirati ‘to demonstrate’), mas-er ‘masseur’ (← masirati ‘to massage’), ilustr-ator ‘illustrator’ (← ilustrovati ‘to illustrate’), skij-aš ‘skier’ (← skijati ‘to ski’), čuv-ar ‘guardian’ (← čuvati ‘to guard’), instal-ater ‘installer’ (← instalirati ‘to install’), preb/j/eg-0̸ ‘defector’ (← preb/j/eći ‘to defect’), troš-adžija ‘spendthrift’ (← trošiti ‘to spend’). Feminine agent nouns are, e.g., pra-lja ‘laundress’ (← prati ‘to wash’), plet-ilja ‘weaver’ (← plesti ‘to handknit’), doj-kinja ‘(wet) nurse’ (← dojiti ‘to breast-feed’), namig-uša ‘minx’ (← namigivati ‘to wink’). Nouns of both genders are: udvor-ica ‘sycophant’ (← udvoriti se ‘to court’), priča-lica m./f. ‘talker’ (← pričati ‘to talk’); piskara-lo m./n. ‘hack writer’ (← piskarati ‘to scribble’). P a t i e n t n o u n s can be represented by the type: prognan-ik ‘exiled person’ (← prognan, passive participle of the verb prognati ‘to exile’). O b j e c t and r e s u l t n o u n s : prostir-ka ‘floorcloth’ (← prostirati ‘to lay’), ruševina ‘ruin’ (← rušiti ‘to demolish’), odlom-ak ‘fragment’ (← odlomiti ‘to break off’), dogovor-0̸ ‘agreement’ (← dogovoriti se ‘to reach an agreement’), ušteđ-evina ‘savings’ (← ušted/j/eti ‘to save’), strug-otina ‘sawdust’ (← strugati ‘to saw’); izrašt-aj ‘outgrowth’ (← izrasti ‘to outgrow’), prired-ba ‘show’ (← prirediti ‘to stage’), pred-ivo ‘yarn’ (← presti ‘to spin’), falsifik-at ‘forgery’ (← falsifikovati ‘to forge’), tetov-aža ‘tattoo’ (← tetovirati ‘to tattoo’), mokr-aća ‘urine’ (← mokriti ‘to urinate’), zaosta-tak ‘remnant’ (← zaostati ‘to remain’), etc. I n s t r u m e n t n o u n s : bris-ač ‘wiper’ (← brisati ‘to wipe’), ogleda-lo ‘mirror’ (← ogledati se ‘to see oneself in the mirror’), diza-lica ‘crane, lifter’ (← dizati ‘to lift’) pišt-aljka ‘whistle’ (← pištati ‘to whistle’), regul-ator (← regulisati ‘to regulate’), pribad-ača ‘pushpin’ (← pribadati ‘to pin’), štit-nik ‘protector’ (← štititi ‘to protect’), igračka ‘toy’ (← igrati ‘to toy’), nos-iljka ‘litter’ (← nositi ‘to carry’), transport-er (← transportovati ‘to transport’); P l a c e n o u n s : borav-ište ‘residence’ (← boraviti ‘to stay’), bira-lište ‘polling station’ (← birati ‘to choose’), čita-onica ‘reading room’ (← čitati ‘to read’), suš-ara ‘drying chamber’ (← sušiti ‘to dry’), kugl-ana ‘bowling club’ (← kuglati se ‘to bowl’), osmatr-ačnica ‘watchtower’ (← osmatrati ‘to watch’), poji-lo ‘watering place’ (← pojiti ‘to water’), park-ing ‘parking lot’ (← parkirati ‘to park’).

165. Serbian

3029

4.4. Denominal adjectives 4.4.1. Suffixation One can single out numerous types of adjectival suffixation, with a great spectrum of meaning variations of even one and the same derivative (cf. the general meaning of ‘relation’ in gradski trg ‘city/urban square’, specified as ‘local’, and the meaning of ‘origin’ in gradski čovek ‘city/urban man’). R e l a t i o n a l adjectives denote: affinity/belonging (brat-ski ‘fraternal’ ← brat ‘brother’, držav-ni ‘state (adj.)’ ← država ‘state, country’), space (kraj-nji ‘last’ ← kraj ‘end’), time (jutar-nji ← jutro ‘morning’); possession a) non-individual (pas-ji ‘canine’ ← pas ‘dog’, goveđ-i ‘bovine’ ← goved- + -ji ← govedo ‘head of cattle’, pčel-inji ‘apian’ ← pčela ‘bee’, šum-ski ‘forest’ ← šuma ‘forest’), and b) individual (brat-ov ‘brother’s’ ← brat ‘brother’, detet-ov ‘child’s’ ← dete, on the basis of masculine and neutral nouns, and žen-in ‘woman’s, wife’s’ ← žena ‘woman’, on the basis of feminine nouns). Adjectives derived from nouns denoting material are formed with several suffixes: kož-ni ‘dermal, leather (adj.)’ (← koža ‘skin’), stakl-en ‘glass (adj.)’ (← staklo ‘glass’), kožn-at ‘leathery’ (← koža ‘leather’); vrb-ov ‘osier (adj.)’ (← vrba ‘willow’), javor-ov ‘maple (adj.)’ (← javor ‘maple tree’). Q u a l i t a t i v e adjectives denote s i m i l a r i t y in shape, color or in some other characteristics, cf. kugl-ast ‘globular’ (← kugla ‘globe, ball’), or p o s s e s s i o n combined with a nuance of repletion, abundance of what is denoted by the base nouns: dlak-av ‘hairy’ (← dlaka ‘hair’), nos-at ‘with a big nose’ (← nos ‘nose’), kamen-it ‘rocky’ (← kamen ‘stone’), brd-ovit ‘mountainous’ (← brdo ‘mountain’), soč-an ‘juicy’ (← sok ‘juice’), apat-ičan ‘apathetic’ (← apatija ‘apathy’).

4.4.2. Circumfixation Adjectives formed on the basis of prepositional phrases are regarded as prefixal-suffixal or circumfixal or suffixal derivatives (see section 4.1.3): bezolov-an ‘lead-free’ (← bez olova ‘without lead’), predispit-ni ‘pre-examinational’ (← pred ispit/pred ispitom ‘before examination’), međupartij-ski ‘inter-party’ (← među partijama ‘between parties’), besposl-en ‘idle’ (← bez posla ‘without work’), protivzakon-it ‘unlawful’ (← protiv zakona ‘against the law’), bezglav-0̸ ‘headless’ (← bez glave ‘without head’), etc. Undoubted circumfixation appears in rare examples like pro-srp-ski ‘pro-Serb(ian)’ (← Srbin, Srbija ‘Serb, Serbia’), a-politič-an ‘non-political’ (← politika ‘politics’), etc.

4.5. Deadjectival adjectives 4.5.1. Prefixation Both native and foreign prefixes participate in the formation of deadjectival adjectives. The derivatives denote

3030

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

a) Approximation: na-gluv ‘hard of hearing’ (← gluv ‘deaf’), pri-glup ‘dullish’ (← glup ‘stupid’), po-velik ‘sizeable’ (← velik ‘big’), o-malen ‘smallish’ (← malen ‘small’), pro-ćelav ‘balding’ (← ćelav ‘bald’), polu-mrtav ‘half-dead’ (← mrtav ‘dead’), sulud ‘pretty crazy’ (← lud ‘crazy’); b) Negation and opposition: ne-zdrav ‘unhealthy’ (← zdrav ‘healthy’), a-moralan ‘amoral’ (← moralan ‘moral’), i-realan ‘irreal’, anti-ratni ‘antiwar (adj.)’ (← ratni ‘war (adj.)’); c) Augmentation, excessiveness: pre-težak ‘overweight’ (← težak ‘heavy’), pra-star ‘primeval, ancient’ (← star ‘old’). Prefixoids are used to denote an a l l e g e d , p r e t e n d e d q u a l i t y : nazovi-mudar ‘allegedly wise’, nadri-duhovit ‘quasi-witty’, pseudo-klasičan ‘pseudoclassic’, kvazi-nov ‘quasi-new’; i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n : ultra-moderan ‘ultra-modern’, hiper-senzibilan ‘hyper-sensitive’, super-bogat ‘super-rich’, and o p p o s i t i o n : kontra-obav/j/eštajni ‘related to counterintelligence’.

4.5.2. Suffixation A t t e n u a t i o n is expressed by the suffix -ast and its variants (-kast, etc.): smeđ-ast ‘brownish’ (← smeđ ‘brown’), crven-kast ‘reddish’ (← crven ‘red’), dug-uljast ‘oblong’ (← dug ‘long’). Other types are less productive: živ-ahan ‘vivacious’ (← živ ‘alive’), gol-išav ‘under-dressed’ (← go ‘naked’). Competition of synonymous suffixes is frequent: plav-ušav, plav-ušan, plav-ušast, plav-uškast, plav-ičast ‘bluish’ (← plav ‘blue’). Competition of suffixes also occurs in the group of d i m i n u t i v e - h y p o c o r i s t i c derivatives: mal-ašan, mal-ešan, mal-ecak, mal-ecan, mal-ečak ‘weeny’ (← malen ‘small, little, tiny’). Adjectives with the suffixes -cat and -cijat express i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n / a u g m e n t a t i o n , cf. nov-cat and nov-cijat ‘absolutely new’ (← nov ‘new’).

4.6. Deverbal adjectives Deverbal adjectives are formed exclusively by means of suffixation and express a c t i v e meaning (e.g., koleb-ljiv ‘wavering’ ← kolebati ‘to waver’, šep-av ‘lame’ ← šepati ‘to limp’, privlač-an ‘attractive’ ← privlačiti ‘to attract’), including adjectives expressing the i n c l i n a t i o n to perform an action (dar-ežljiv ‘generous’ ← darovati ‘to donate’), p u r p o s i v e meaning (pis-aći ‘(for) writing’ ← pisati ‘to write’, e.g., pisaći sto ‘writing desk’) and p a s s i v e - m o d a l meaning (shvat-ljiv ‘conceivable’ ← shvatiti ‘to conceive’, čit-ak ‘legible’ ← čitati ‘to read’, dostiž-an ‘attainable’ ← dostići ‘to reach’). From the synchronic point of view, adjectives of the type leteći (tanjir) ‘flying (saucer)’, tekuća (voda) ‘flowing (water)’, bivši (ministar) ‘former (minister)’, etc. are derived from verbal stems with the suffixes -eći, -ući and -vši.

165. Serbian

3031

4.7. Deadverbial adjectives Deadverbial adjectives are derived by a few suffixes only: dosada-nji ‘previous’ (← dosada ‘hitherto’), spolj-ni ‘external’ (← spolja ‘outward’), suviš-an ‘redundant’ (← suviše ‘too (much)’), etc.

4.8. Denominal verbs 4.8.1. Suffixation One can point out certain semantic groups among the different formation types (e.g., verbs in -ati, -isati, -iti, -ovati − traditionally, the suffixes are listed together with the infinitive ending -ti). Denominal verbs in -ovati, e.g., can express the meanings ‘to be N’ (šef-ovati ‘to be a boss’), ‘to make N/participate in N’ (štrajk-ovati ‘to strike’), ‘to have N’ (bol-ovati ‘to suffer, be ill’ ← bol ‘pain’). The following verbs, with different suffixes, are grouped according to their common categorial meanings: a) ‘to be N/work as N/behave like N’: šef-ovati ‘to be a boss’ (← šef ‘boss’), lektorisati ‘to edit, lecture’ (← lektor ‘editor, lecturer’), gospodar-iti ‘to predominate, lord over’ (← gospodar ‘lord, master’), ribar-iti ‘to fish’ (← ribar ‘fisher’); majmunisati ‘to ape’ (← majmun ‘ape’), tvrdič-iti ‘to act like a miser’ (← tvrdica ‘miser’); b) ‘to become (like) N’: momč-iti se ‘to become a lad’ (← momak ‘lad’); c) ‘to perform N’: štrajk-ovati ‘to strike’ (← štrajk ‘strike’); d) ‘to have N’: bol-ovati ‘to suffer, be ill’ (← bol ‘pain’); e) ‘to make N’: portret-isati ‘to portray’ (← portret ‘portrait’), sir-iti ‘to produce cheese’ (← sir ‘cheese’), orgij-ati ‘to participate in an orgy’ (← orgija ‘orgy’); f) ‘to convert sth. into N’: led-iti (se) ‘to ice, freeze’ (← led ‘ice’); g) ‘to act with the help of N’: burgij-ati ‘to drill’ (← burgija ‘drill’), brus-iti ‘to hone’ (← brus ‘hone’); h) ‘to provide with N’: boj-iti ‘to dye’ (← boja ‘dye’), šećer-iti ‘to add sugar’ (← šećer ‘sugar’), malter-isati ‘to mortar’ (← malter ‘mortar’).

4.8.2. Circumfixation Numerous verbs are formed by circumfixation. The type PREF-...-iti is productive: začep-iti ‘to stopple’ (← čep ‘stopple’), iz-običaj-iti se ‘to fall into disuse’ (← običaj ‘custom’), na-lakt-iti se ‘to lean to’ (← lakat ‘elbow’), nat-kril-iti ‘to surpass’ (← krilo ‘wing’), o-međ-iti ‘to establish borders, delimit’ (← međa ‘border, limit’), po-šum-iti ‘to afforest’ (← šuma ‘forest’), pre-most-iti ‘to build a bridge’ (← most ‘bridge’), pri-zemljiti ‘to land’ (← zemlja ‘earth, land’), raz-glas-iti ‘to make public’ (← glas ‘voice, rumor’), u-oblič-iti ‘to give a form to’ (← oblik ‘form’), s-kor-iti se ‘to crust’ (← kora ‘crust’). The basis can also consist of a prepositional connection: o-bezglav-iti ‘to behead’ (← bez glave ‘without head’).

3032

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.9. Deadjectival verbs 4.9.1. Suffixation Deadjectival verbs can be grouped according to their meanings: a) ‘to make sth./sb. A’: tup-iti ‘to blunt’ (← tup ‘blunt’), komplet-irati ‘to complete’ (← kompletan ‘complete’), stabil-izovati ‘to stabilize’ (← stabilan ‘stable’); b) ‘to become A’: mršav-iti ‘to become skinny’ (← mršav ‘skinny’), žut/j/eti ‘to become yellow’ (← žut ‘yellow’), jač-ati ‘to strengthen’ (← jači, comp. of jak ‘strong’).

4.9.2. Circumfixation Most verbs formed by circumfixation are factitive (causative) verbs: za-gust-iti ‘to make sth. dense’ (← gust ‘dense’), na-sit-iti ‘to satiate’ (← sit ‘satiated’), nad-vis-iti ‘to overtop’ (← visok ‘high’), po-nov-iti ‘to renew’ (← nov ‘new’), o-brkat-iti ‘to grow a mustache; become mustached’ (← brkat ‘mustached’), ob-jasn-iti ‘to explain’ (← jasan ‘clear’), pri-čvrst-iti ‘to fasten’ (← čvrst ‘tight’), raz-jasn-iti ‘to clarify’ (← jasan ‘clear’), is-prav-iti ‘to rectify’ (← prav ‘straight’), s-tanj-iti ‘to laminate’ (← tanji, comp. of tanak ‘thin’), u-prost-iti ‘to simplify’ (← prost ‘simple’); o-pust-/j/eti ‘to desolate’ (← pust ‘desert’). Inchoative verbs are rarer: po-ružn-eti/po-ružnj-eti ‘to become ugly’ (← ružan ‘ugly’); o-tež-ati ‘to aggravate’ (← teži, comp. of težak ‘heavy’), u-brzati ‘to accelerate’ (← brz ‘fast’), ras-krupnj-ati ‘to become large’ (← krupan ‘large’); o-tvrd-nuti ‘to solidify’ (← tvrd ‘solid’).

4.10. Deverbal verbs 4.10.1. Prefixation Prefixation is most frequently accompanied by the change of verbal aspect. The following prefixes are productive: do-, za-, iz- (is-, iš-, iž-, i-, iza-), na-, nad- (nat-, nada-), o-, ob- (oba-), od- (ot-, o-, oda-), po-, pod- (pot-, poda-), pre-, pred- (pret-), pri-, pro-, raz(ras-, raš-, raž-, ra-, raza-) sa- (s-, z-, š-), u-, uz- (us-, uš-), whereas mimo-, naj-, pa-, protiv-, su-, suprot- show weak productivity. Some foreign prefixes such as de-, ko-, realso participate in deverbal word-formation. The modificational meaning of these prefixes is very diversified. Types with s p a t i a l prefixes are most numerous: u-trčati ‘to run in’, is-trčati ‘to run from’, us-trčati ‘to run up (a hill)’, do-pratiti ‘to accompany to’, za-viriti ‘to take a peek behind’, iz-gurati ‘to push out’, na-slagati ‘to stack up’, nad-zidati ‘to build (sth.) on’, o-kopati ‘to prepare digging the soil’, ob-zidati ‘to build a wall around (a park, garden, building)’, pot-kopati ‘to undermine’, pre-seliti ‘to move (to change residence)’, pro-gurati ‘to push through’. Te m p o r a l meaning (predictability) can be found in: proreći ‘to predict’ (← reći ‘to say’), pred-vid/j/eti ‘to foresee’ (← vid/j/eti ‘to see’), etc.

165. Serbian

3033

Other types denote different kinds of aktionsarten: B e g i n n i n g : za-plivati ‘to start swimming’ (← plivati), pro-raditi ‘to start working’ (← raditi), po-trčati ‘to start running’ (← trčati), raz-buditi se ‘to start awakening’ (← buditi se), uz-mutiti ‘to start blurring’ (← mutiti); E n d / c o m p l e t i o n : za-kočiti ‘to come to a halt’ (← kočiti ‘to brake’), na-tovariti ‘to load’ (← tovariti), o-kupati ‘to finish having a bath’ (← kupati), od-lomiti ‘to chip’ (← lomiti), po-slati ‘to finish sending’ (← slati), u-seliti se ‘to finish moving in’ (← seliti se), pri-trčati ‘to rush to’ (← trčati), etc.; I n t e n s i t y : a) high degree, e.g., iz-roditi ‘to bring forth more children’ (← roditi ‘to bring forth’), iz-vikati (se) ‘to yell a lot’ (← vikati), pre-soliti ‘to oversalt’ (← soliti), op-teretiti ‘to burden excessively’ (← teretiti), nad-vikati ‘to yell out’ (← vikati), za-liti ‘to water (plants)’ (← liti ‘to pour’); b) low degree, e.g., po-pričati ‘to have a talk’ (← pričati ‘to talk’), do-liti ‘to add some more (liquid)’ (← liti ‘to pour’), pri-držati ‘to hold on’ (← držati ‘to hold’), pro-sušiti ‘to dry slightly’ (← sušiti), etc. Formation types with foreign prefixes have the meaning of n e g a t i o n (de-militarizovati ‘to demilitarize’), r e p e t i t i o n (re-vakcinisati ‘to revaccinate’), or a c o m i t a t i v e meaning (ko-egzistirati ‘to coexist’), etc. There are numerous examples of quasi-prefixation (the stem/base does not exist as autonomous word): načeti ‘to cut into’, dovesti ‘to bring’, sagnuti se ‘to bend down’, prisloniti ‘to lean’, poklopiti ‘to cover’, etc.

4.10.2. Suffixation Generally, the corresponding formation types may be categorized into two groups with affective semantics: verbs which denote l o w i n t e n s i t y (diminution) of an action (šetkati ‘to pace, walk a while’ ← šetati ‘to walk’, puc-ketati ‘to crackle’ ← pucati ‘to crack, shoot, fire (by fire-arms)’, drht-uriti ‘to quiver’ ← drhtati ‘to tremble’, jur-cati ‘to run around’ ← juriti ‘to run’, drem-uckati ‘to doze’ ← dr/ij/emati ‘to nap’, leš-kariti ‘to repose a little’ ← ležati ‘to lie’, pis-karati ‘to scribble’ ← pisati ‘to write’, p/j/evušiti ‘to hum’ ← p/j/evati ‘to sing’, smej-uljiti/smij-uljiti se ‘to laugh in a concealed way’ ← smejati/smijati se ‘to laugh’), and verbs with p e j o r a t i v e meanings (mlatarati ‘to wave with hands’ ← mlatiti ‘to thrash’, klim-atati ‘to niddle-noddle’ ← klimati ‘to nid-nod’, cer-ekati se ‘to giggle’ ← ceriti se ‘to titter’, etc.).

4.11. Deinterjectional verbs A smaller group of verbs with the meaning ‘to produce sounds’ is derived by suffixation: tiktak-ati ‘to ticktack’ (← tik-tak), /g/rok-tati ‘to oink’ (← /g/rok), tup-nuti ‘to knock’ (← tup onomatopoeic word imitating a knock), me-ketati ‘to utter a goat’s sound’ (← me), top-otati ‘to produce the sound of stepping’ (← top), kvo-cati/kvoc-ati ‘to peck (about hens)’ (← kvo or kvoc).

3034

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

4.12. Derivation of adverbs A number of adverbs are formed by prefixation: ne-rado ‘unwillingly’ (← rado ‘willingly’), po-vazdan ‘all the time’ (← vazdan ‘all day long’), preko-sutra ‘day after tomorrow’ (← sutra ‘tomorrow’). Diminutive structures of the type mal-ko ‘just a little’ (← malo ‘a little’), malč-ice ‘a bit’ (← malko), polag-acko ‘very slowly’ (← polagano ‘slowly’) are derived by means of suffixation. Prepositional connections underly adverbs of manner as, e.g., naglav-ačke ‘upside down’ (← na glavi ‘on the head’), postran-ce ‘sideling’ (← po strani ‘at the side’), potrbuš-ke ‘facedown’ (← po trbuhu ‘on the stomach’). Many adverbs contain petrified suffixes and nominal declension endings: danju ‘by day’, noću ‘by night’, jutros ‘this morning’, etc.

5. Conversion 5.1. Nominal conversion Primarily adjectives are subjected to nominal conversion. By ellipsis, which is frequent in conversational and professional styles, the first constituent of an attributive sequence is converted into a noun: interno odeljenje (bolnice) ‘internal medicine department (of a hospital)’ → interno, filološki fakultet ‘philological faculty’ → filološki, etc. The names of many countries originated in this way (e.g., francuska zemlja ‘French land’ → Francuska ‘France’), as well as appellatives (pòkōjnī ‘deceased’, stârī ‘old man, father’). These formations keep their adjectival declension, which is also valid for entirely lexicalized nouns like žènskā ‘woman, mistress’, mlâdā ‘bride’, originating by nominalization of feminine forms of definite adjectives (DAT/LOC.SG žènskōj, mlâdōj). Besides, there is a secondary variant mlâda ‘bride’ (← mlâdā), with nominal declension (DAT/LOC mlâdi). The converted forms of neuter adjectives like mȕško ‘male, man/men’, žȅnsko ‘female, woman/women’, zlȍ ‘the evil’, dòbro ‘the good’ generally have nominal declension (GEN.SG. muška). The converted noun slàtkō ‘traditional Serb preserve made of fruit or rose petals; lit. sweet’ has both noun and adjectival declension. The conversion of pronouns is less common, cf. svi ljudi su galamili ‘all people made noise’ → svi su galamili ‘all made noise’, ona žena klimnu glavom ‘that woman nodded’ → ona klimnu glavom ‘that one (f.) nodded’. The noun rekla-kazala ‘hearsay’ (its only form is NOM.SG) goes back to the conversion of the active past participles of the verbs reći ‘to say’, kazati ‘to tell’.

5.2. Adjectival conversion The passive participles (e.g., iznošeni kaput ‘worn-out coat’, voljena žena ‘beloved wife, woman’, kuvano jelo ‘cooked meal’) and a great part of active past participles (vrela supa ‘hot soup’, odrasli ljudi ‘adult humans’, uvelo lišće ‘dead leaves’) can be converted to adjectives.

165. Serbian

3035

5.3. Adverbial conversion The widest implementation of conversion can be found in the class of adverbs (converted from the neuter form of adjectives), e.g., jako ‘very’, bezbrižno ‘carelessly’, sumnjivo ‘suspiciously’, zastrašujuće ‘scarily’, sportski ‘sportingly’. Conversion of nouns in the form of the instrumental case is frequent: većinom ‘mostly’ (← većina ‘majority’), šapatom ‘whispering’ (← šapat ‘whisper’), etc. Various prepositional connections are also converted: doveče ‘this evening’ (← do ‘to’, veče ‘evening’), nabolje ‘getting better’ (← na ‘on’, bolje ‘better’, comp. of dobar ‘good’), etc. The adverb povuci-potegni ‘with extreme effort; lit. pull-haul’ originated by means of deverbal conversion.

5.4. Prepositional conversion A significant number of prepositions can be traced back to adverbs and adverbial constructions: a) Prepositions ← genuine adverbs: van ‘outside of’ (← van ‘out’), preko ‘over’ (← preko ‘on the other side’); b) Prepositions ← adverbialized nouns in the accusative case: vrh ‘on’ (← vrh ‘top’), put ‘toward’ (← put ‘way’); c) Prepositions ← adverbialized nouns in the instrumental case: putem ‘by’ (← put ‘way’), pomoću ‘by, with the aid/help of’ (← pomoć ‘help’); d) Prepositions ← adverbialized prepositional case forms: navrh ‘on, at’ (← na vrh ‘on top’), udno ‘beneath’ (← u dno ‘in the bottom of’).

6. Minor processes of word-formation The following examples may be regarded as results of b a c k f o r m a t i o n : the abstract noun zlovolja ‘animosity’ which is motivated by the adjective zlovoljan ‘ill-tempered’ (← zla volja ‘ill temper’), and not vice versa, as well as velikosrbin ‘great Serbia nationalist’ (← velikosrpski ‘characterized by Serbian nationalism’ ← velika Srbija ‘great Serbia’), Prasloven ‘a proto-Slav’ (← praslovenski ‘belonging to proto-Slavs’), etc. R e d u p l i c a t i o n can be found in exclamations and onomatopoeias: bući-bući, tašitaši (addressing oneself to children), mac-mac, pi-pi (call to animals), av-av, kre-kre (imitation of voices of animals), kuc-kuc ‘sound of knocking’, etc., and words, spelled together (gdegde/gdjegdje ‘somewhere’, katkad ‘sometimes, once in a while’ or ‘rarely’), or connected by a hyphen (tako-tako ‘so-so, tolerably’, malo-malo ‘at moments’). There are several types of b l e n d i n g. Blends can consist of a) Parts of two words: restoteka ‘a restaurant with a discotheque’ (← restoran + diskoteka); b) One whole and one truncated word: titostalgija ‘nostalgia after Tito, i.e. after old times’ (← Tito + nostalgija ‘nostalgia’), knjigralište ‘a place where children can read

3036

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

and play’ (← knjiga ‘book’ + igralište ‘playground’), mučionica (← mučiti ‘to torture’ + učionica ‘class-room’ − in students’ slang); c) Superposition of syllables of two independent words: popustolovina (popust ‘price reduction’ + pustolovina ‘adventure’ − in customers’ slang), minicijativa (mini ‘an automobile brand’ + inicijativa ‘initiative’ − a commercial offer), etc. Examples of c l i p p i n g are represented by nouns such as friz (← frizura ‘coiffure’), Amer (← Amerikanac ‘an American’). Sometimes, the substraction is followed by postpositive segments: faks (← fakultet ‘faculty’), giša (← ginekolog ‘gynecologist’), profa (← profesor ‘professor’), doca (← doktor ‘doctor’), etc. Wo r d - c r e a t i o n is primarily characteristic for conversational style of urban environments, in youth ambience. Such words are morphologically and semantically nontransparent for persons who do not belong to these communities. Generally, this fact is the purpose of their formation. They are a kind of hide-and-seek lexemes. For instance, the word gudra ‘drug’ was created by the inversion of the syllables in the accusative case (imaš li gudru = imaš li drogu ‘do you have the drug?’); cf. also feka ‘coffee’ < kafe, gen. of kafa, tebra ‘brother’ < brate, vocative of brat, etc.

7. References Belić, Aleksandar 1901 Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der slavischen Deminutiv- und Amplificativsuffixe. 1. Substantiva. Archiv für slavische Philologie 23: 134−206. Belić, Aleksandar 1904 Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der slavischen Deminutiv- und Amplificativsuffixe. 2. Adjectiva. Archiv für slavische Philologie 26: 321−357. Belić, Aleksandar 1931 Srpski jezik. Obrazovanje reči − složenice i sufiksi. Beograd: Litografija. Belić, Aleksandar 1949 Savremeni srpskohrvatski književni jezik. Part 2: Nauka o građenju reči. Beograd: Narodna knjiga. Bošković, Radoslav 1936 Razvitak sufiksa u južnoslovenskoj zajednici. Beograd: Državna štamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Ćorić, Božo 1982 Mocioni sufiksi u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Beograd: Filološki fakultet. Ćorić, Božo 2008 Tvorba imenica u srpskom jeziku. Beograd: Društvo za srpski jezik i književnost. Ćorić, Božo 2010 Postfiks u srpskoj tvorbi reči. Srpski jezik 15(1–2): 549−553. Daničić, Đuro 1876 Osnove srpskoga ili hrvatskoga jezika. Beograd: Državna štamparija. Dobrovský, Josef 1809 Ausführliches Lehrgebäude der böhmischen Sprache zur gründlichen Erlernung derselben für Deutsche, zur vollkommenen Kenntnis für Böhmen. Prag: Herrl. Kiršova, Marijana 1998 Nomina agentis i nomina instrumenti u srpskom i ruskom književnom jeziku. Podgorica: ODP Štamparija „Trebinje“.

165. Serbian

3037

Kiršova, Marijana 1999 Nomina loci u savremnom srpskom jeziku. Podgorica: ODP Štamparija „Trebinje“. Klajn, Ivan 2002 Tvorba reči u savremenom srpskom jeziku. Vol. 1: Slaganje i prefiksacija. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, Matica srpska, Institut za srpski jezik. Klajn, Ivan 2003 Tvorba reči u savremenom srpskom jeziku. Vol. 2: Sufiksacija i konverzija. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, Matica srpska, Institut za srpski jezik. Leskien, August 1914 Grammatik der serbo-kroatischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Winter. Maretić, Tomislav 1899 Gramatika i stilisika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga književnog jezika. Zagreb: Hartman. Marojević, Radmilo 2005 Tvorba reči u savremenom srpskom jeziku Ivana Klajna (1): Slaganje i prefiksacija. Srpski jezik 10(1−2): 685−779. Marojević, Radmilo 2007 Tvorba reči u savremenom srpskom jeziku Ivana Klajna (2): Sufiksacija i konverzija. Srpski jezik 12(1−2): 501−602. Matijašević, Jelka 2009 Cirkumfiks kao tvorbeni formant. Slavistika 13: 316−326. Novaković, Stojan 1894 Srpska gramatika. Beograd: Državna štamparija. Radić, Prvoslav 2001 Turski sufiksi u srpskom jeziku (sa osvrtom na stanje u makedonskom i bugarskom). Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik SANU. Radović Tešić, Milica 2002 Imenice s prefiksima u srpskom jeziku. Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik. Rammelmeyer, Matthias 1975 Die deutschen Lehnübersetzungen im Serbokroatischen. Beiträge zur Lexikologie und Wortbildung. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Stanojčić, Živojin and Ljubomir Popović 2008 Gramatika srpskog jezika za gimnazije i srednje škole. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike. Stefanović, Vuk 1814 Pismenica serbskoga jezika po govoru prostoga naroda. Beč [Vienna]: Pečatnja Joanna Širera. Stefanović, Vuk 1818 Srpski rječnik istolkovan njemačkim i latinskim riječima. Beč [Vienna]: Štamparija jermenskog manastira. Stefanović Karadžić, Vuk 1828 Glavna svršivanja suštestvitelni i prilagatelni imena u srpskom jeziku. Danica 3: 1−135. Stefanović Karadžić, Vuk 1852 Srpski rječnik istumačen njemačkijem i latinskijem riječima. Beč [Vienna]: Štamparija jermenskog manastira. Stevanović, Mihailo 1971 Gramatika srpskohrvatskog jezika za gimnazije. 7th ed. Cetinje: Obod. Stevanović, Mihailo 1984 Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik. Gramatički sistemi i književnojezička norma. Vol. 1. 4th ed. Beograd: Naučna knjiga.

Božo Ćorić, Belgrade (Serbia)

3038

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

166. Bosnian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction Convergence and divergence Prefixation Suffixation Stylistically marked formations Clipping References

Abstract The language of the Bosniaks was declared a separate language in the 1990s. The choice of the glottonym Bosnian caused a significant dispute with the Serbian and Croatian sides as they opposed the name of the language, being of the opinion that Bosniaks should call their language Bosniak. The standardisation of word-formation is characterised by two trends: convergence (with Croatian) and divergence (from Serbian models).

1. Introduction The language of the Bosniaks is one of the successors of Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian whose norms were used until the 1990s by four national communities: Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Croats and Serbs. The dissolution of the common state of Yugoslavia led to the officialisation of the language of the Bosniaks as a language of its own, the designation of which was not in accordance with the national community (Bošnjaci ‘Bosniaks’ → bošnjački jezik ‘Bosniak language’), but in accordance with the territory (Bosna ‘Bosnia’ → bosanski ‘Bosnian’). This induced the implication: Bosnian language = language of Bosnia, so that the language of only one national community (Bosniak) is nominally connected to the territory that is also common to the other two: Croats and Serbs. The three national languages (and, at the same time, the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina) − Bosnian/Bosniak, Croatian, and Serbian − are based on an identical dialectal base (Shtokavian − štokavski; cf. also article 99 on word-formation and purism in Croatian), and thus every unilateral solution impacts upon interests of the other resident national communities and becomes a multilateral problem. The decision to name the language according to the territory where it is spoken rather than according to the ethnos, evoked a dispute about the glottonym between the Bosniaks, who insisted on territorial, and not ethno-national appellation of their language (bosanski jezik ‘Bosnian language’ ← Bosna ‘Bosnia’), and Croats and Serbs, who stressed that they too belong to Bosnia and therefore cannot be identified with only one of three languages (the language of the Bosniaks), nor does one national community (Bosniaks) have the exclusive right to adopt for itself the term bosanski ‘Bosnian’. It was argued that it would be more reasonable to name the language of the Bosniaks (jezik Bošnjaka) as bošnjački jezik ‘Bosniak language’. The linguistic dispute has continued without the prospect of a gener-

166. Bosnian

3039

ally acceptable solution nor any feasible compromise, and at the moment there are two glottonyms in use: bosanski ‘Bosnian’ (tending to be used by Bosniaks), and bošnjački ‘Bosniak’ (tending to be used by Croats and Serbs). Taking into consideration that Bosnian has only had the status of a standard language since the 1990s, the development of linguistic norms, including research on standardised word-formation, has taken place only for the short period of some twenty years. Research until then was conducted within the framework of the common Serbo-Croatian/CroatoSerbian norms, in which there was no specific separate language of Muslims in the national sense (as they have been identified since the 1971 census), or as Bosniaks (as they began to declare themselves in the 1990s). Given that Bosnian has witnessed a very short period of standardisation, word-formation in Bosnian is poorly researched − a particularly visible phenomenon in comparison with Croatian and Serbian works on word-formation. For example, 56 % of the 289 individual editions that deal exclusively with word-formation published in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia and Serbia, come from Serbian linguistics, and 44 % from Croatian linguists, while not a single publication for Bosnian exists. Similarly, 56 % of the 382 articles published in academic periodicals deal with Serbian, 42 % with Croatian, but only 2 % with Bosnian. The largest part is focused on the analysis of individual formations (34 %), suffixes and suffixation (31 %), general problems (16 %), and onomastics (10 %). There are fewer works on prefixes and prefixation (5 %), compounds (4 %), and gendered formations (3 %). All other topics make up 2 %. As for other sources (not exclusively in the field of word-formation), more information can be obtained from a university and higher level grammar (Jahić, Halilović and Palić 2000: 304−326), considerably less from a grammar for the elementary school level (Čedić 2004: 74−78), and one for the high school level (Vajzović and Zvrko 1994: 98− 110). There is another grammar that would belong here: Gramatika bosanskog jezika za srednje škole. Dio I i II: Nauka o glasovima i oblicima [Grammar of the Bosnian Language for Secondary Schools. Part I and II: The Study of Sounds and Forms] (Vuletić 1890), but this grammar has a completely different orientation. In fact, it is not a grammar of contemporary Bosnian, but a result of the Austro-Hungarian effort to introduce and make official a specific language for Bosnia and Herzegovina, among other things, in the form of a grammar with symmetric territorial and linguistic denominations, i.e. the language of Bosnia is Bosnian. It cannot be accepted as the first grammar of Bosnian, but only as an attempt at writing a grammar for the language spoken at that time in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A harsh critique of the grammar by Jahić, Halilović and Palić (2000) was written by Riđanović (2003: 32−35, 90−96). He pointed out that the authors nearly always relied in their approach and interpretation on Croatian, including phrasing, terminology, and examples (without naming the source). He came to the conclusion that “a significant part” of the “Grammar of the Bosnian Language” “was copied from ‘Croatian Grammar’ [Barić et al. 1995]” (Riđanović 2003: 178). At the same time, there is a notable distancing from and marginalisation of Serbian sources. Anti-Croatian trends in the standardisation of Bosnian were drawn attention to by Miloš Okuka. He referred to the thinking of Pavle Ivić (1999) that after the secession of Bosnia and Herzegovina there was a strong tendency to increase the distance of the Bosnian standard language from Serbian and Croatian as much as possible. This was carried out through the introduction of a number of loanwords from Turkish and Arabic,

3040

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

which hitherto had no access to the standard language although they can be found in the Muslim folk idioms. “In the building (codification) of the ‘new’ language of the ‘new’ nation there is no Serbo-Croatian symmetry, and the real victim is, in fact, Serbian” (Okuka 2006: 403). In Bosniak linguistic circles, the Croatisation of Bosnian has been recognised by several authors. Hanka Vajzović, for example, notes that there is “an evident process of Croatisation on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, and cites as examples words such as čimbenik ‘factor’, glede ‘regarding’, obrana ‘defence’, tisuća ‘thousand’, točno ‘true’, veljača ‘February’, etc., which are regarded to be typical of Croatian (Vajzović 2009: 143 ff.). Anti-Serbian purism is evident in the standardisation of Bosnian. Even trends which almost all modern purists in the world are struggling against − the opposition to the increasing pressure and invasion of anglicisms − are not as widespread as the rejection of Serbian, the comprehension of which in an ordinary communicative context is almost hundred percent (therefore, the rejection of Serbian is evidently determined by other, non-communicative arguments). However, the excessive Croatisation that has been conducted for the last two decades may lead to a critical point for the emergence of a stronger anti-Croatian purism. In the standardisation of Bosnian, a great weakness consists in the gap between what is prescribed and what is actually practiced.

2. Convergence and divergence 2.1. General questions In the formation of Bosnian, a struggle of two opposite trends can be observed − convergence and divergence. There are two types of Bosnian convergence: a) within Bosnia and Herzegovina (i.e. what we call “intracorrelational convergence”, concerning the other languages spoken in the Federation, but also diatopic and diastratic varieties), and b) in relation to Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro (i.e. “intercorrelational convergence”); for terminology and further explanations see article 99 on word-formation and purism in Croatian. Bosnian intracorrelational convergence is most conspicuous in relation to the idea of the neutralisation of trilingualism and the creation of an “individual”, “main”, “all-state”, “supranational” language for the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Jahić 1999a: 103). In Bosnia, “the name of the Bosnian language often pulls away from its narrow meaning (the meaning of the language of Bosniaks), and captures a wider (possible) meaning; the meaning of the language of all Bosnians, with more regional than national characteristics” (Jahić 1999a: 89). The idea of “Bosniak-Bosnian convergence” and “Bosniak-Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian neutralisation” may be related with “Bosniakhood” in a broader sense, which (according to Jahić 1999a: 98) argues for a unified Bosnia and Herzegovina and an integral, unified Bosnian, or Bosniak people. More precisely: “The idea of Bosniakhood in a wider sense emphasises that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one speaks and writes in Bosnian, or ‘Bosniak’, which is the native language of all Bosnians (or Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Orthodox, and Bosnian Catholics). In this way, the Bosnian language acquires its supranational (namely suprareligious) character” (Jahić 1999a: 98). Convergent features are emphasised with the argument that

166. Bosnian

3041

it is not in the interest of modern Bosnian to be isolated (Jahić 1999a: 239). It is a tolerant language, open to Serbisms and Croatisms, in spite of a certain purist and separatist resistance. “Be it as it may, it is not suitable, neither linguistically nor politically, for the Bosnian language to close itself off towards any language that it is in contact with”, namely “from Bosnian Croats and Croatian, since Croatian is after all a ‘transit language’ on the road towards Latin Europe” (Jahić 1999a: 197). However, this view is denied by the actual conversational and (especially) standardisation practice oriented towards the repression and elimination of Serbian characteristics. From the Croatian and Serbian sides there is considerable reservation to Bosniak interconvergence because it implies the possibility of neutralisation of Croatian and Serbian in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their merging into what Bosniaks call Bosnian language. As has been mentioned above, Bosniak convergence is currently focused mainly on Croatian. However, this process seems to have gone so far that it has begun to irritate, appearing as a violent, excessive, unnecessary Croatisation of Bosnian. For example, on a panel of the Council of Bosniak intellectuals, some have characterised this process as “continuing aggression in language and through language” (Kroatizacija bosanskog jezika). The divergent standardisation of Bosnian is based on a conscious rejection and distancing from Serbian and far less from Croation. Separatist tendencies within the Bosnian language may be primarily reflected in the effort to create as large as possible a number of differences in relation to Serbian and Croatian. “This can, first and foremost, be achieved by the excessive use of Turkish words, attempts to renew Turkish words that have expired, and whose vitality cannot be regained. Beside this, it is possible as well to insist on other Bosnian regional characteristics [...] which are not present (or seldom) in Serbian or Croatian” (Jahić 1999a: 92−93). In certain works it is emphasised that Bosnian is actually closer to Croatian because of its western characteristics, whereby eastern features (i.e. Serbian) are consciously obfuscated (Jahić 1999: 107). “Regarding Croatisms, Bosnian is more lenient in relation to them (or at least it appears like that to us) thanks to some of the old west Shtokavian connections with the Croatian linguistic heritage” (Jahić 1999: 117). The author refutes almost all of the claims of overlapping Serbian and Croatian in Bosnia and Herzegovina and observes the opposite: a strong tendency to foster the authentic values and aspirations for their affirmation, making them official and (as a consequence) grammatically normative (Jahić 1999a: 96). He predicts that the relations between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian will go in the direction of an increasing difference (Jahić 1999a: 94).

2.2. Models of convergence and divergence The analysis of the 200 most frequent words in the parallel Gralis-Corpus, which covers about 38 % of the corpus of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (Gralis-www), shows that 1. amongst them there are no loanwords, foreign words, calques, compounds, abbreviations, portmanteau words, expressively coloured vocabulary, occasionalisms, archaisms, historisms, dialecticisms, jargonisms, etc., 2. the divergence in word-formation of Bosnian, Croation and Serbian is rare or even not visible at all, 3. even in an expanded list of 2,000 of the most common words, there is no formation that could be related exclusively

3042

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

to Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian, and 4. interlingual differences mainly concern the frequency of use. The corpus research and correlation of forms, meanings and frequency demonstrated that on the lexical level, including word-formation, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian constitute five models: Model A includes examples from Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian which have the same form, the same meaning and almost coincide in frequency in all three languages. This lexicon is prevalent in the list of the 200 most common words, for instance, deverbal nouns with the suffix -lic-a (bušilica ‘drill’ ← bušiti ‘to drill’, kosilica ‘lawnmower’ ← kositi ‘to mow’, radilica ‘worker bee’ ← raditi ‘to work’), deadjectival abstract nouns in -ost (radost ‘joy’, mladost ‘youth’, starost ‘age’, aktivnost ‘activity’, budućnost ‘future’). Model B comprises elements that have the same form and meaning in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, but differ in the frequency of use. Here belong, amongst others, pritisak ‘pressure’, sigurnost ‘security’, skupina ‘group’. Compare also the verbal suffix -ova-ti, which is prevalent in Serbian, and -ira-ti, which is dominant in Croatian and increasingly imposed as normative in Bosnian. Model C includes formations which have a different form, an identical meaning, and a different frequency, e.g., ogledalo − zrcalo ‘mirror’ with the first word being typical for Bosnian, Ekavian Serbian (see the explanation below, Model D), and the second for Croatian. Model C also includes words such as: muzika − glazba ‘music’, pažnja ‘attention’ (← paziti ‘to mind, pay attention’) − pozornost ‘id.’ (← pozoran ‘attentive’), utisak − dojam ‘impression’. This model also includes adjectives with the suffix -k-/-n(jezički − jezični ‘linguistic’ ← jezik ‘language’), and pairs of internationalisms and indigenous terms for months: januar − siječanj ‘January’, februar − veljača ‘February’, mart − ožujak ‘March’, etc. Model D comprises forms with a similar pattern, the same meaning and divergent frequency. Here, in the first place, belong words with the reflex of the “jat” type (i.e. the different realisation/continuation of the proto-Slavonic vowel ѣ (ě), called jat, as , or (the latter is dialectal and does not occur in the examples to follow), e.g., devojka − djevojka ‘girl’, dete − dijete ‘child’, where the first lexeme is typical of Ekavian Serbian and the last of Bosnian, Croatian and Ijekavian Serbian. Model D also contains a group of lexemes with an optional a (e.g., dijalekt − dijalekat ‘dialect’, projekt − projekat ‘project’, perfekt − perfekat ‘past tense’). Model E includes words with the same form, different meaning and irrelevant frequency of use, for example, odojče with the meaning ‘baby’ in Serbian, ‘roast lamb’ in Croatian, and both in Bosnian.

3. Prefixation In Bosnian, the prefixation of nouns, adjectives, and verbs is based on the same prefixes, models and procedures as in Croatian and Serbian with the proviso that the standardisation and implementation mostly gives preference to solutions typical of Croatian. In the Bosniak version of the Dayton Peace Agreement (cf. Gralis-www), for instance, one did not choose the prefix sa- ‘co-, together’ (typical of Serbian), but su- (typical of Croatian), i.e. not saradnja ‘cooperation’, sarađivati ‘to cooperate’, saradnik ‘associate’, but suradnja, surađivati, suradnik. The same concerns the prefixes pred- and pod-, ne-za-/ne-o-, and od-/o- where the latter (typical of Croatian) was used, i.e. not preduzeće

166. Bosnian

3043

‘company’, preduzeti ‘to initiate’, but poduzeće, poduzeti, not nezavistan ‘independent’, nezavisno ‘independently’, nezavisnost ‘independence’ (typical for Serbian), but neovisan, neovisno, neovisnost (typical for Croatian), not odbrana ‘defence’ (Serbian), but obrana (Croatian).

4. Suffixation In Bosnian public discourse there is an increase in the use of morphological Croatisms such as tužitelj ‘prosecutor’ (Serb. tužilac) and tužiteljica ‘prosecutor f.’ (Serb. tužiteljka), tužiteljsvo ‘prosecution’ (Serb. tužilaštvo), cf. Valjevac (2005: 86). Plural forms of agent nouns such as čitaoci ‘readers’, gledaoci ‘viewers’, slušaoci ‘listeners’ (typical for Serbian to express collective meaning) are being replaced by the collective nouns čitateljstvo ‘readership’, gledateljstvo ‘viewership’, slušateljstvo ‘auditorium’ (typical for Croatian). In the official use, one sees also a noticeable strengthening of the abstract suffix -iranje, typical of Croatian, e.g., funkcioniranje ‘functioning’ (Serb. funkcionisanje), from which follows the conclusion that Bosnian is becoming closer to Croatian, although in the practice of informal speech, as in Serbian, more commonly used nouns end in -isanje and -ovanje (Valjevac 2005: 86−87). In Bosnian, there is a tendency to substitute Croatian forms for typically Serbian ones. This applies particularly to the following noun suffixes (in the pairs to follow the first suffix is typically Serbian, the second typically Croatian): Tab. 166.1: Suffixes typically used in Serbian or in Croatian -lac/-telj

čitalac − čitatelj molilac − molitelj

‘reader’ ‘petitioner’

-nik/-telj

upravnik − upravitelj

‘manager’

-lk-a/-lic-a

učiteljka − učiteljica

‘teacher f.’

-kinj-a/-ic-a

studentkinja − studentica

‘student f.’

-b-a/-anij-e

preobrazba − preobrazovanje, promidžba − promicanje

‘transformation’ ‘promotion’

Nouns in -telj dominate in Croatian, while Bosnian uses the suffix -lac, which is typical of Serbian and also dominates in Bosnian conversational practice (Valjevac 2005: 85 f.).

In Croatian deverbal nouns in -ba (izvedba ‘performance’, provedba ‘implementation’) have supplanted the derivatives in -nje (izvođenje, provođenje). In Bosnian, the second suffix is more common, while Serbian adheres to the old formation model (nagodba ‘settlement’, pogodba ‘deal’), but izvođenje, provođenje are also commonly used (Valjevac 2005: 85−86).

3044

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

Tab. 166.1: (continued) -ak/-j-a

zadatak − zadaća (ć < t+j)

‘task’

-jaj/-je

izvještaj − izvješće (št and šć going back to st+j)

‘report’

-onik/-ik

vodonik − vodik kiseonik − kisik

‘hydrogen’ ‘oxygen’

-ista/-ist

lingvista − lingvist kaptalista − kapitalist

‘linguist’ ‘capitalist’

-ij/-um

simpozij − simpozijum moratorij − moratorijum

‘symposium’ ‘moratorium’

Foreign suffixes In Bosnian, as in Croatian, the norm tends towards nouns ending in -ist, although in conversational practice -ist-a appears as well (Valjevac 2005: 85).

There has also been an increase in the use of individual words, e.g., polovica ‘a half’ (typical for Croatian) instead of polovina (typical for Serbian), uputa and naputak ‘instruction’ instead of uputstvo (typically Serbian). On the other hand, there are cases in which Bosnian and Serbian coincide, for example, in both languages the variants diplomat and diplomata ‘diplomat’ appear, while in Croatian the usual form is diplomat (Valjevac 2005: 85). In the word-formation of Bosnian, one can observe “a visible pro-Croatian orientation”, in addition to an exaggerated presence of orientalisms and ruralisms (Valjevac 2005: 96). Due to this kind of purism (“cleansing the words that seemingly are nonBosnian” − in other words: those which are Serbian), the very system of language is undermined, which is why Bosnian looks more and more like Croatian. This is also reflected in dictionaries, which contain, e.g., only: uvjet ‘condition’, sudionik ‘participant’, općina ‘municipality’, plaća ‘salary’, etc. (cf. Čedić 2005: 166), and not uslov, učesnik, opština, plata, typical of Serbian. The fact that Bosniak noun formation standards are pro-Croatian and anti-Serbian is also demonstrated in the book Gnijezdo lijepih riječi. Pravilno − nepravilno u bosanskom jeziku [Nest of Beautiful Words. Correct − Incorrect in Bosnian] (Halilović 1996). The author presents word pairs in which the first word is treated as “correct”, and the second as “incorrect” (here marked by an asterisk), even though most of the “incorrect” words are ordinarily found in everyday use among Bosniaks, e.g., august/kolovoz − *avgust ‘August’ (p. 10). Most examples, however, do not concern suffixal synonymy as reflected in the different adaptation of loanwords (e.g., aluminij − *aluminijum ‘aluminium’ (p. 10), kriterij − *kriterijum ‘criterion’ (p. 28), biciklist − *biciklista ‘cyclist’ (p. 12)), but typical phonetic differences such as istovjetan − *istovetan ‘identical’, općina − *opština ‘municipality’ (p. 96), plaća − *plata ‘salary’, both ← platiti ‘to pay’ (p. 42), prijevoz − *prevoz ‘transport’ (p. 102), and words with different stems (otok − *ostrvo ‘island’ (p. 40), uvjerljivo − *ubedljivo ‘persuasively’ (p. 116)). Cases where typical Croatian words are categorised as irregular, are more seldom. This usually concerns phonetic differences in loanwords or foreign words, including

166. Bosnian

3045

some proper names: Evropa − *Europa ‘Europe’, evropski − *europski ‘European’ (p. 16, 75), hirurg − *kirurg ‘surgeon’ (p. 19), hronika − *kronika ‘chronicle’ (p. 20), hemija − *kemija ‘chemistry’ (p. 78), melanholija − *melankolija ‘melancholy’ (p. 32), okean − *ocean ‘ocean’ (p. 38), sport − *šport ‘sport’ (p. 110). Sometimes there are differences in grammatical gender (planeta − *planet ‘planet’ (p. 44)), or other differences, like Španija − *Španjolska ‘Spain’ (p. 112). In some cases, words which are typical for both Croatian and Serbian have been classified as incorrect: lahko − *lako ‘easy’ (p. 86), proha − *proja ‘corn bread’ (p. 103), sumahnut − *sumanut ‘frantic’ (p. 111), spuž − *puž ‘snail’ (p. 104), truhlež − *trulež ‘rot’, etc. A series of doublets appear in the use of adjectival suffixes, with the proviso that there is an effort and a tendency to recommend and retain only that which is typical for Croatian (the second examples in the pairs to follow). Such are the doublets -k-/-n-: jezički − jezični ‘linguistic’ (← jezik ‘language’); -n-i/-nj-i: ljetni − ljetnji ‘summer (adj.)’ (← ljeto), -sk-/-n-: dijalekatski − dijalektalni ‘dialect(ical)’, -on-/-sk: korelacioni − korelacijski ‘correlational’. Standard Bosnian prefers individual adverbs typical for Croatian: not uopšte ‘generally’ (typical for Serbian), but uopće, not uprkos ‘in spite of’, but unatoč, and similar words characteristic of new Croatian speech, especially the radical variant which does not encounter a wider support. In the use of verb suffixes Bosnian is also taking on more characteristics of Croatian while distancing itself from Serbian, cf. the suffix doublets -isa-ti/-ira-ti: anatemisati − anatemizirati ‘to excommunicate’, -ova-ti/-ira-ti: organizovati − organizirati ‘to organise’, in which the first is typically Serbian and second typically Croatian, although there are verbs with only one possible suffix in all three languages: 1. only -ira-ti (blokirati ‘to block’, aplaudirati ‘to applaud’, komunicirati ‘to communicate’, sabotirati ‘to sabotage’), 2. only -isa-ti (kalajisati ‘to blanch’, majmunisati ‘to do monkey business’, vragolisati ‘to act devilishly’, ciganisati ‘to behave like a Gypsy’), 3. only -ova-ti/-eva-ti (oblikovati ‘to form’, carevati ‘to rule like a tsar’). We do not know of a suffix or prefix which would belong exclusively to Bosnian. Generally in all three languages (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian), what comes to the fore is a greater or lesser use of same forms. The suffix -uš-a, for instance, is used more widely and diversely in Bosnian than in Croatian and Serbian. In Bosnian one can find, for instance, a dozen words referring to ‘coffee’, such as: dočekuša (‘a welcome coffee’ ← dočekati ‘to wait for sb.’), jacijuša (‘coffee after the jacija prayer, the last one of five daily Muslim prayers’), razgovoruša (‘coffee over a conversation’ ← razgovor ‘conversation’), razljevuša (‘coffee that is poured out’ ← razljevati ‘to pour out’), etc. (Jahić 1999b). Rječnik bosanskog jezika [Bosnian Dictionary] (Čedić 2007) provides only three words of this type (mostly they refer to one of the meanings of polysemous words). One is razgovoruša, in its third meaning defined as ‘a colloquial term in Bosnia for the ceremonial coffee, the first morning coffee, or one consumed only for conversational sake (in addition to dočekuša and sikteruša)’. The second is sikteruša ‘Turkish coffee that is prepared for the farewell of the guests; ironically the third coffee (after dočekuša and razgovoruša)’. The third lexeme − dočekuša − appears in the explanation of the previous two. Cf. also obikuša ‘coffee’ in the sense of the serving, making of this beverage at the time when it is usually drunk; another meaning is ‘a bride who resides in the

3046

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

bride-groom’s house until she becomes accustomed (obikne) to it’, but they are regarded as archaisms (Šehović 2007: 48). The suffix -uš-a is especially common in Bosnian. We can find 27 examples in the Školski rječnik bosanskog jezika [Bosnian School Dictionary] (Jahić 1999b) which denote female persons or have various other meanings. Some are pejoratively marked: balinkuša ‘Muslim woman’ (← balija ‘muslim’ pej.), dimijakuša ‘woman wearing the traditional female trousers called dimije’. Other designations of women are connected with one of the meanings of a polysemous word, e.g., pirlituša ‘a woman who dresses up, prunes herself’ (in the first meaning: ‘dress, clothes with pirletak (woven pattern)’). Another group of words, denoting women, is constituted by synonymic lexemes of different motivation, e.g., tračalica (← tračati ‘to gossip’), raspituša (← raspitati ‘to enquire’), raspravuša (← raspraviti ‘to discuss’), razglasuša (← razglasiti ‘to make public’), raznosuša (← raznositi ‘to carry about (gossip)’), all referring to a gossipy woman. Other examples are: jalovuša ‘a barren woman’ (← jalov ‘barren’), klevetuša ‘a slanderous woman’ (← klevetati ‘to slander’), namiguša ‘coquette, easy woman, prone to casual relations with men’ (← namignuti ‘to wink at sb.’), miraziša ‘a woman with a dowry’ (← miraz ‘dowry’), etc. A characteristic of Bosnian is reflected in derivatives with suffixes adapted from oriental languages, “as well as lexical borrowings of the same provenance which give a special seal to the system of word-formation and Bosnian as a whole” (Vajzović and Zvrko 1994: 106). Some of these suffixes have been adapted so well that they have become productive not only in combination with bases of oriental origin (e.g., kujundžija ‘goldsmith’), but also with local words, and even with non-Oriental loanwords, especially personal nouns in -džij-a/-čij-a (buregdžija ‘burekmaker’ ← burek ‘a kind of meat pie’, ćevabdžija ‘chevapmaker’ ← ćevap ‘meat stick’), -džik-a/-čik-a the female equivalent to -džij-a (e.g., kahvedžika ‘coffee maker f.’, provodadžika ‘matchmaker f.’, tramvajdžika ‘tram driver f.’, etc.); abstract nouns in -luk (words of foreign origin: dunjaluk ‘the earthly world’, hadžiluk ‘Hajj’, akšamluk ‘sitting party’, but also bezobrazluk ‘brazenness’ ← bezobrazan ‘brazen’, majstorluk ‘craftiness’ ← majstor ‘master’, prostakluk ‘rudeness’ ← prostak ‘boor’); adjectives in -li (merakli ‘pleasurable’, rahmetli ‘deceased’; and with domestic stems: obrazli ‘honourable’ ← obraz ‘countenance’), and another group of personal nouns in -lij-a (meraklija ‘a man of pleasures’, zanatlija ‘craftsman’ ← zanat ‘craft’, osmanlija ‘Ottoman’), cf. Vajzović and Zvrko (1994: 106). There are several suffixes of Oriental origin which do not participate in the formation of a large number of words (mostly they are found in loanwords), e.g., -džik (kapidžik ‘back door’), -(h)an-a (kafana ‘pub’, dvorana ‘hall’ ← dvor ‘court’), -ćar (zulumćar ‘oppressor’, hizmećar ‘exploiter’).

5. Stylistically marked formations In Bosnian, a revitalisation of archaisms, primarily religious in character, such as mudžahedin ‘mujahedeen’, šehid ‘martyr’, džehenem ‘Jahannam, hell’ can be observed (Šehović 2007: 52−53). Semantic neologisms also appear (i.e. new meanings for already existing words) such as babo and hadžija ‘the main man, the person in charge’ (original meaning: ‘father’ and ‘Hadji/Hajji, Muslim who has made a pilgrimage to Mecca’).

166. Bosnian

3047

Sometimes, new words are created by using local elements: raz-rahatlen-isati se ‘to get rid of worries’ (Halilović, Tanović and Šehović 2009: 140), cf. Turkish rahatlı ‘quiet’ and the noun rahat ‘quiet, rest, ease’, which is also found in Bosnian. Like other languages, Bosnian is flooded with anglicisms, but there is not such a strong resistance against them as in Croatian, which brings Bosnian closer to the Serbian position. Blending can be observed in examples like škodiljak (škoda ‘Skoda’ + kadilak ‘Cadillac’). Some blends and clippings (also as a result of ellipsis) are accompanied by suffixation, e.g., buvljak ‘flea market’ (← bulnja pijaca), dupljak ‘double trolley’ (← dupli bus), minjak, minica ‘mini skirt’ (← mini suknja), dizelaš ‘car with diesel engine’. There are also uncommon derivatives like the personal noun čaršijaner (← čaršija ‘typical quarter of Bosnian towns’), šupljirati ‘to talk a hollow, empty talk’ (← šuplji ‘hollow’), and numerous examples of derivatives with positive or negative values such as: mrkvica ‘freckled redhead girl’ (← mrkva ‘carrot’), mršavica and mršavuljak ‘skinny girl’ (← mršav ‘skinny, slim’), and with the non-standard suffix -i: babi (← babo ‘father’), mami (← mama ‘mom’) (besides mamko), srki ‘emotionless’ (← srklet ‘void’), -one in babone from babo (Halilović, Tanović and Šehović 2009: 170). In the formation of new words specific pejoratives emerge like ubleha ‘ugly, untidy woman’ and blehto ‘stupid person’ (← blentav ‘crazy’), ćorak ‘unattractively looking young man’ (← ćorav ‘blind’), đozlaš ‘person who wears glasses’ (← đozluke ‘glasses’), ćumuruša ‘boring, uninteresting person’ (← ćumur ‘coal’). The conversational language and urban speech have a specific word-formation in which, as in standard Bosnian, suffixation is the most productive word-formation procedure (Halilović, Tanović and Šehović 2009: 153).

6. Clipping Clippings are found in the names of companies, e.g., Bosmal (← Bosnia and Malaysia), Micom (← Midhat and computers), cf. Grebović (2003: 62), but mostly we will find abbreviations. They can be related to the state administrative authority (FBiH ← Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine ‘Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’), political and public life (SDA ← Stranka demokratske akcije ‘Party of Democratic Action’), military (ARBiH ← Armija Republike Bosne i Hecegovine ‘Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina’), religion (IZ ← Islamska zajednica ‘The Islamic community’), culture (BOMUZ ← Dani bosanskohercegovačke muzike ‘Days of Bosnian and Herzegovinian music’), media (FTV ← Federalna televizija ‘Federal Television’, SAN ← Sarajevske novine ‘Sarajevo press’). Abbreviations can serve as a basis for the derivation of adjectives (cf. with the suffix -ov(a): MMF-ov ‘IMF’s’ ← Međunarodni monetarni fond ‘International Monetary Fund’, SFOR-ova bolnica ‘SFOR hospital’), and nouns ( cf. with the suffix -ovac: mupovac ‘policeman, a person working in the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ ← MUP ← Ministarstvo Unutarnjih Poslova, hadezeovac ‘a member of the political party Croatian Democratic Union’ ← HDZ ← Hrvatska demokratska zajednica Bosne i Hercegovine).

3048

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

7. References Barić, Eugenija, Mijo Lončarić, Dragica Malić, Slavko Pavešić, Mirko Peti, Vesna Žečević and Marija Znika 1995 Hrvatska gramatika. 3rd ed. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Čedić, Ibrahim 2004 Osnovi gramatike bosanskog jezika. Priručnik za osnovne škole. Sarajevo: Bosna leksika. Čedić, Ibrahim 2005 Pisana riječ i jezičke norme u Bosni i Hercegovini. In: Josip Baotić (ed.), Standardna novoštokavština i bosanskohercegovačka jezička situacija, 112−173. Sarajevo: Institut za jezik u Sarajevu. Čedić, Ibrahim 2007 Rječnik bosanskog jezika. Sarajevo: Institut za jezik. Gralis-www. Das linguistische Slawistik-Portal der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Grebović, Selma 2003 Skraćenice u bosanskom jeziku. Pismo 1(1): 59−71. Halilović, Senahid 1996 Gnijezdo lijepih riječi. Pravilno − nepravilno u bosanskome jeziku. Sarajevo: Baština. Halilović, Senahid, Ilijas Tanović and Amela Šehović 2009 Govor grada Sarajeva i razgovorni bosanski jezik. Sarajevo: Slavistički komitet. Ivić, Pavle 1999 Jezičko planiranje u Srbiji danas. Jezik danas 3(9): 5−10. Jahić, Dževad 1999a Bosanski jezik u 100 pitanja i 100 odgovora. Sarajevo: Ljiljan. Jahić, Dževad 1999b Školski rječnik bosanskog jezika. Sarajevo: Ljiljan. Jahić, Dževad, Senahid Halilović and Ismail Palić 2000 Gramatika bosanskoga jezika. Zenica: Dom štampe. Kroatizacija bosanskog jezika http://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20021125/bih01.asp [last access 14 July 2015]. Okuka, Miloš 2006 Sukobi i razgraničavanja. In: Miloš Okuka (ed.), Srpski na kriznom putu, 373−417. Istočno Sarajevo: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva. Riđanović, Midhat 2003 Totalni promašaj. Prikaz Gramatike bosanskog jezika Dž. Jahića, S. Halilovića, I. Palića. 2nd ed. Sarajevo: Šahinpašić. Riđanović, Midhat 2009 O bosanskom jeziku, o propadanju Bosne, i ... o vama. Sarajevo: Zalihica. Šehović, Amela 2007 Leksičke promjene − pokazatelj društvenih promjena. Pismo 5(1): 48−58. Tošović, Branko and Arno Wonisch (eds.) 2009 Bošnjački pogledi na odnose između bosanskog, hrvatskog i srpskog jezika. Die bosniakische Sichtweise der Unterschiede zwischen dem Bosnischen, Kroatischen und Serbischen. Graz/Sarajevo: Institut für Slawistik der Karl-Franzens-Universität/Institut za jezik. Vajzović, Hanka 2009 Jezik i politika: Kroatizacija jezika na prostoru Bosne i Hercegovine − agresija ili ustavno pravo? In: Branko Tošović and Arno Wonisch (eds.), Bošnjački pogledi na odnose između bosanskog, hrvatskog i srpskog jezika. Die bosniakische Sichtweise der Unter-

167. Bulgarian

3049

schiede zwischen dem Bosnischen, Kroatischen und Serbischen, 143−155. Graz/Sarajevo: Institut für Slawistik der Karl-Franzens-Universität/Institut za jezik. Vajzović, Hanka and Husein Zvrko 1994 Gramatika bosanskog jezika. I.−IV. razred gimnazije. Sarajevo: Ministarstvo obrazovanja, nauke i kulture. Valjevac, Naila 2005 Standardna novoštokavština i jezička situacija u Bosni i Hercegovini. In: Ibrahim Čedić (ed.), Standardna novoštokavština i bosanskohercegovačka jezička situacija, 4−111. Sarajevo: Institut za jezik. Vuletić, Franjo 1890 Gramatika bosanskog jezika za srednje škole. Dio I i II: Nauka o glasovima i oblicima. Sarajevo: Naklada Zemaljske vlade za Bosnu i Hercegovinu [Reprint Wuppertal: Das bosnische Wort 1994].

Branko Tošović, Graz (Austria)

167. Bulgarian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction General overview Composition Derivation Conversion Minor processes of word-formation Conclusion References

Abstract The article gives an overview of word-formation in present-day standard Bulgarian. It describes the main means and patterns of producing new words laying the emphasis on derivation (affixation in the first place) and composition, which are central in the wordformation system of Bulgarian.

1. Introduction Bulgarian belongs to the Southern branch of the Slavic language family. Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavonic) has been documented historically since the 9 th/10th century, as it served as basis for translations of Greek sacred texts during the Christianization of the Slavs. Especially in the Middle Bulgarian period, the language underwent significant changes, e.g., the elimination of case declension, the development of a suffixed definite

3050

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

article, and the demise of the infinitive, but it preserved the rich verb system and the characteristic features of an inflectional language in word-formation. Contemporary Bulgarian is the official language of Bulgaria (7.3 million inhabitants), one of the official languages of the EU and an acknowledged minority language in Serbia, Romania, and the Ukraine. The earliest information on the main ways of forming new words in Bulgarian can be found in Petăr Beron (1824). Later grammars, up to the end of the 19 th century, offer no separate treatment of the problems of word-formation. Nevertheless, fragments of word-formation analysis can be discovered in paragraphs characterizing the formal structure of words which are divided into “primary” and “derivative” words. Derivatives are further subdivided into “simple” (i.e. words formed by affixation) and “compound” words. The latter can be formed out of “primary” or “simple” words (for historical linguistic terminology see also article 2 on word-formation research from its beginnings to the 19 th century). The grammars appearing in the 19 th and early 20th century, mainly pedagogical works, register and describe complex words with a view to their structure and constituent parts (roots, affixes, linking morphemes), which is the practice of European and Russian linguistic scholarship of the time. The 1930’s and 1940’s saw the first attempts at a scientific explanation of wordformation phenomena and a characterization of the means of forming new words in Bulgarian. Word-formation is beginning to attract special attention and is given more space in linguistic publications. Relying on the achievements of comparative historical linguistics, Bulgarian scholars treat word-formation either diachronically or synchronically, but always as part of the morphology of one or another part of speech (Mladenov 1929; Conev 1934; Teodorov-Balan 1940; Andrejčin 1944). Interest in word-formation grew stronger among Bulgarian linguists in the second half of the 20th century, which was characteristic of Slavic linguistics in general during that period. The first Slavic linguistic studies that were aimed at a theoretical interpretation of the meaning and form of complex words and offered models for their description were published in the 1940’s and they had their impact on Bulgarian linguistics as well. The 1950’s were a crucial period for the development of a new attitude towards wordformation in Slavic and Bulgarian linguistics. During this time Ivan Lekov’s monograph Slovoobrazovatelni sklonnosti na slavjanskite ezici [Word-Formation Propensities of the Slavic Languages] (Lekov 1958) was published. Its contribution to Bulgarian and Slavic word-formation studies is twofold: а) t h e o r e t i c a l , mainly concerned with the place of word-formation among the other levels of language, the function of word-formation formants, the criteria and models for the comprehensive description and classification of complex words in the Slavic languages. Lekov regards word-formation as a specific area, which should be attributed its own independent status, without at the same time denying its connections with lexicology and grammar (Lekov 1958: 3). In his opinion, the semantic function of the formant is a criterion of paramount importance for the classification of derivatives, hence his idea of a model allowing the simultaneous description of wordformation in all the Slavic languages; b) a p p l i e d , connected with the description of the distribution of formants in the Slavic languages, their origin and spread and their word-formational activity.

167. Bulgarian

3051

In his monograph, Lekov follows the main principles of structuralism, which had already become dominant in European linguistics. The monograph lays the foundations for the contrastive study of Bulgarian word-formation and other languages, thus establishing a tradition which persists to this day (cf. Igov 1967; Dejanova et al. 1980; Molhova 1986: 115−182; Avramova 2003; Maldjieva 2009; Kolarova 2010 and others). The 1960’s are characterized by intensive all-round research into Bulgarian wordformation. This includes the various means and patterns of word-formation in the standard language and dialects, the analysis of complex words in Old Bulgarian (Old Slavonic), the development of the word-formation system during the National Revival period (19 th century), etc. Researchers make use of a number of approaches: Dokulil’s onomasiological theory as well as that of the Russian word-formation school, Doroszewski’s logico-syntactic theory, the principles of generative grammar and of case grammar, the predicate-argument structure of semantic syntax, etc. The direction of the analysis is from form to meaning or (more and more often in recent decades) from meaning to form. What unites the majority of these studies is the acceptance of the relative independence of word-formation as a linguistic level. At the same time some authors continue to treat word-formation as part of morphology (e.g., Stojanov 1964, 1983; Georgieva 1967). An attempt to give an overview of Bulgarian word-formation with respect to the wordformation structure and meaning of complex words is Radeva’s monograph (Radeva 2007). Bulgarian word-formation has also been approached from the viewpoint of the theory of naming. The main tendencies in the word-formation system of the standard language from that perspective are presented in Murdarov (1983). Murdarov believes that wordformation, which in his opinion includes phrasal naming units, serves the lexicon of the language, making possible its enrichment especially in periods of dynamic political, economic and social change. In a functional perspective the author shows that wordformation processes follow the schema “genus − species − subspecies”, which determines the activity of each of the means of word-formation in the production of new words. On the basis of mainly terminological data Murdarov reaches the conclusion that in the investigated period phrasal word-formation is the most active means of wordformation in the standard language. In the 1970’s and 1980’s a synchronic lexicographic description is carried out with the help of so-called word-formation nests, i.e. word families, cf. Ilieva et al. (1999: 6− 8). See also article 131 on dictionaries. Bulgarian linguists have been continually observing and interpreting trends in the development of Slavic word-formation at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. Central among such innovations is internationalization (Selimski 2003; Avramova 2003; Georgieva 2007). Such investigations focus on the enrichment of the means of word-formation, the expansion and activation of composition, the establishment of new types and patterns, the changing attitude towards foreign affixes, etc. Historical studies by Bulgarian and foreign authors reveal, from a synchronic or diachronic point of view, the development of the word-formation system from the 9 th to the 19 th century (Szymański 1968; Baltova 1978; Selimski 1983, 1984; Cejtlin 1986; Mostrova 2005). Word-formation in the Bulgarian dialects has also been the object of diachronic and synchronic analysis (Holiolčev 1965; Kočev 1971; Troeva 1988). An important contribution to the study of Bulgarian word-formation has been made by a number of outstanding foreign Bulgarianists (T. Szymański 1977; Herej-Szymańska 1978; Maslov 1982; Scatton 1984: 245−310, etc.).

3052

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

2. General overview The specific historical development of Bulgarian from a synthetic to an analytical nominal structure, which (together with Macedonian) is unique within the Slavic language family, has not affected the stability of the Bulgarian word-formation system. During both periods in the development of the literary language − Old Bulgarian and Modern Bulgarian − there has been no conflict between the inherited Old Slavonic means of word-formation and the innovations resulting from the influence of foreign (Balkan, Slavic and West European) systems with which Bulgarian has been in direct or indirect contact. Enriched throughout its thousand-year-old history, the word-formation system of Bulgarian, especially in its literary form, has preserved its characteristic features: well-developed affixation and expanding composition (see sections 3 and 4). Changes during the various sub-periods of development are mainly connected with the intensification of some of the processes, the activation and increased productivity of individual means, models and patterns. This results in shifts of some entities (e.g., individual formants or some patterns of composition) from the centre to the periphery and the other way round, without affecting the basic features of the centre. The main means of producing new words in Bulgarian is affixation (see section 4), which forms lexical items with the help of native and borrowed formants. Prefixation is most common in verbal derivation (see section 4.8). During the recent decades, however, prefixation has been expanding and is becoming more active in the nominal system as well, a process characteristic of all Slavic and European languages. The inventory is mainly enriched with foreign formants labelled as “neoclassical” in European linguistics (a-, anti-, de-, eks- ‘ex-’, kontra-, re-, etc.). The foreign formants make their way into Bulgarian through ready-made lexical borrowings. Suffixation is more typical of nominal word-formation (see sections 4.1 and 4.2) and less prominent in the formation of verbs. The use of borrowed formants often leads to shifts in the distribution of word-formation means. There is a group of formants which are labelled “affixoids” in Bulgarian works on word-formation. Their status is not yet well-defined theoretically and we include them here under affixation. Some affixoids (eko- ‘eco-’, avto- ‘auto-’, geo-, vice-, etc.) are sometimes treated as constituents of compounds. This blurs the boundaries between affixation and composition. According to a common definition of a compound, however, its components correlate in form and meaning with items which function freely as lexical units. Since there is no such correlation here, the products of “affixoidization” should be treated as affixal formations and the respective formants as affixoids, i.e. as belonging to affixation. (Some examples of “suffixoids” are -log, -fil ‘-phile’, -fen ‘-fan’, -gejt ‘-gate’.) Another central means of word-formation, characteristic mainly of the literary language already in Old Bulgarian, is composition (see section 3). In the translation of liturgical texts from Greek, whole patterns have been borrowed which are today considered classical in the Slavic languages (see also article 115 on historical word-formation in Slavic). Composition is established as an active means of word-formation (Cejtlin 1986). Bulgarian compounds follow the classical patterns with a linking vowel (mostly -o-) between the components of determinative compounds (ključodăržatel ‘key-holder’, pătevoditel ‘guide book; lit. way-guide’), coordinative compounds (pokupko-prodažba ‘buying and selling’, železobeton ‘reinforced concrete’) or “synthetic compounds” (vodonosec ‘water-carrier’, prahosmukačka ‘vacuum cleaner; lit. dust-sucker’, vlastoljubiv

167. Bulgarian

3053

‘power-loving’, rusokos ‘fair-haired’, etc.). The number of compounds containing two nominal units without a linking vowel (stažant-advokat ‘trainee lawyer’, biznessrešta ‘business meeting’, skipista ‘ski piste’, etc.; see section 3) has been constantly growing during the past decades, mainly under the influence of English (earlier also under the influence of German). We can also include under composition the so-called clipped compounds, albeit with reservation. Here the clipped component coincides with the root of the respective adjective (specakcija ‘special action’, socsistema ‘socialist system’), or both components are clipped (detmag ‘children’s store’ ← detski magazin). This model is relatively new for the Bulgarian word-formation system. Other means of word-formation are poorly represented or else have completely lost their productivity. Some of the most recent patterns are limited to slang and various jargons and therefore remain outside the system of the Bulgarian standard language.

3. Composition 3.1. Introductory notes After affixation, composition is the second most important means of Bulgarian wordformation (Andrejčin 1944; Radewa 1955; Stojanov 1964, 1983; Georgieva 1967). It is mainly characteristic of the literary language. The establishment and expansion of composition goes back to the Old Bulgarian period and is connected with the direct translation from the Greek of the liturgical texts for the needs of the Christian religion in Bulgaria. According to Cejtlin (1986: 207), every sixteenth complex word in the Old Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th−11th century is a compound. The functions of composition subsided during the five-century long Ottoman domination: Bulgarian was not the official language and divine service was carried out in Greek. It was only in the 19 th century that composition resumed its place once again to meet the needs of denomination as part of the establishment of the Modern Bulgarian literary language and the restructuring of the lexical and word-formation system. This secured the continuity in the historical development of the Bulgarian word-formation system (Baltova 1978). In the end of the 19 th and the first half of the 20th century composition reduced its activity at the expense of affixation. Today the activity of composition is again on the increase, and new patterns of composition are becoming established mainly under the influence of English. In this way composition in present-day literary Bulgarian combines traditional (classical) Slavonic-Bulgarian models with innovative ones, typical of West European languages. Slavic linguistics recognizes two types of compounds: compounds proper and “mergers” (Bulg. srastvanija), a term that corresponds to “univerbation” in the terminology of West European linguistics. Compounds proper contain two bases or roots of full lexical items. They are formed after a pattern and are the result of a synchronic word-formation process (komin-o-čistač ‘chimney sweep’, čušk-o-pek ‘pepper-roaster’, hleb-o-proizvodstvo ‘bread production’, dăžd-o-nosen ‘rain-bringing’, bingozala ‘bingo hall’, etc.). The two components are connected by the linking vowels (interfixes) о or е (beton-o-bărkačka ‘concrete mixer’, sine-ok ‘blue-eyed’), rarely u or i (dv-u-kolka ‘two-wheeler’, pet-i-letka ‘five-year period’) or else directly (ofis-mebeli ‘office furniture’, fitnes-zala ‘fitness centre’, băndži-skok ‘bungee jump’).

3054

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

“Mergers”, according to the interpretation accepted in Slavic linguistics, are formations resulting from the merging of the components of a phrase without any formal change or change of the word order. They are very rare in Bulgarian. The problem of the status of the lexemes containing a “quasi interfix” remains unresolved (visoko-produktiven ‘highly productive’, večno-živ ‘forever living’, četiri-krak ‘four-legged’, stărčiopaška ‘wagtail’, etc.). According to some linguists these formations are mergers of two independent units (adverb in -o + adjective, numeral in -i + noun, 3rd pers. sg. in -i in the verbal component of the exocentric compound). In our opinion, the establishment of patterns for their formation and the reproduction of their formal structure is sufficient reason to treat them as true compounds.

3.2. Nominal composition 3.2.1. Determinative compounds In Bulgarian linguistics, the description of determinative compounds is based on the distinction between verb-centered and noun-centered compounds. The components of verb-centered compounds are connected by a linking vowel (an interfix or a “quasi interfix”, cf. section 3.1). The part of speech categorization of the compound is marked by a suffix added to the second component (kart-o-igr-ač ‘cardplayer’) or by a change of paradigm (sneg-o-rin-0̸ ‘snowplough’ ← rine snjag ‘to shovel snow’). (As Bulgarian has no infinitive, the motivating verb is given in the 3rd pers. sg. pres., where the present stem is obvious; otherwise, the citation form is the 1st pers. sg. pres.; the English equivalent is given in the infinitive.) The most common suffixes are: -ec, -tel, -ač, -ačk-, -lk-, -ij-, etc. The resulting compounds belong to the categories of agent nouns (kominočistač ‘chimney sweep’), instrument nouns (tărnokop ‘pickaxe; lit. thorn-dig’), place nouns (korabostroitelnica ‘shipyard’), and action nouns (počvonapojavane ‘soil irrigation’). The formations can be regarded as synthetic compounds where neither the combination of the first two nor of the last two elements exists as free word (cf. article 33 on synthetic compounds in German). The compounds may be of the following structure: N+V+SUFF: orden-o-nos-ec ‘medal-holder; lit. medal-o-wear-AGENT’, păt-e-vodi-tel ‘guide book; lit. way-o-guide-INSTR’, prah-o-smuk-ačka ‘vacuum cleaner; lit. dust-osuck-INSTR’; Adv+V+SUFF: visok-o-govori-tel ‘loudspeaker’, bărz-o-hod ‘fast-walker’ (in this case, the linking vowel is a “quasi interfix”); Pron+V+SUFF: vs-e-dărži-tel ‘the Omnipotent; lit. all-hold-AGENT’, sam-o-nastanjava-ne ‘squatting; lit. self-accomodation’. The following V+N compounds are e x o c e n t r i c : lapni-šaran ‘ninny; lit. gobblecarp’, razvej-prah ‘spendthrift; lit. scatter-dust’. This model, also occurring in other Slavic languages, is not productive in present-day Bulgarian. The first component is homonymous with the imperative form of the motivating verb. These compounds are more common in dialects and occasionally occur as place names (Čujpetľovo lit. ‘listen to the cock’). In the literary language, they are stylistically marked and have a pejorative connotation.

167. Bulgarian

3055

N o u n - c e n t e r e d c o m p o u n d s have the following structures: a) Root compounds (N+N) Here belong formations like gost-režis’or ‘guest producer’, biznesdama ‘business lady’, fitnesklub ‘fitness club’, golfigrište ‘golf course’, duš-baterija ‘shower faucet’, kafemašina ‘coffee machine’. The compounds denoting places and instruments, mostly reveal a purposive connection between the components. This pattern whose components are identical in form with freely functioning nouns and linked without an interfix, is comparatively new to Bulgarian and other Slavic languages; it is influenced by English, and partially by German borrowings. At present this is the most active way of producing compounds in Bulgarian. The main stress usually falls on the first component (fìtneszȁla ‘fitness centre’). The paraphrases revealing the semantics of the complex item provide a necessary objective criterion for clarifying the status of the first component, which is by some linguists regarded as a non-inflected (so-called analytical) adjective (see also article 43 on compounds and multi-word expressions in Slavic, section 4.3). − Some compounds are e x o c e n t r i c , e.g., pticečovka ‘duck-billed platypus; lit. bird-beak’. b) Synthetic compounds The components can be connected with a linking vowel or a “quasi interfix”. The part of speech of the compound is marked by a suffix (părv-o-klas-nik ‘first-grader’). The most frequently used suffixes are -nik, -ec, -ij-, -k-, etc. deriving personal, nonpersonal, and abstract nouns, e.g., A+N+SUFF: drug-o-sel-ec ‘person from another village’ (← drugo selo ‘other village’), prav-o-ăgăl-nik ‘rectangle’ (← prav ăgăl ‘right angle’), păln-o-lun-ie ‘full moon’ (← pălna luna); exocentric: červen-o-šij-ka ‘readbreast’ (← červena šija ‘read front neck’); Num+N+SUFF: părv-o-klas-nik ‘first-grader’ (← părvi klas ‘first grade’), dv-u-ezičie ‘bilingualism’ (← dva ezika ‘two languages’). c) Appositive compounds Nouns in which the determining component is in second position also show a subordinative relationship between the components (Baltova 1985). This is a relatively new type in Bulgarian word-formation and has a low productivity. It is typical of the literary language. The inflection of the second component only and the hyphenated spelling are an indication of its single-word character (vagon-restorantăt ‘the dining car; lit. carINDEF.SG-restaurant-DEF.SG’), kandidat-studenti ‘university applicants; lit. applicantINDEF.SG-student-INDEF.PL’, stažant-advokatite ‘the trainee lawyers; lit. trainee-INDEF.SGlawyer-DEF.PL’).

3.2.2. Coordinative compounds The components of coordinative compounds can be united by a linking vowel and/or by hyphenated spelling, e.g., želez-o-beton ‘reinforced concrete; lit. iron-concrete’, pokupko-prodažba ‘buying and selling’ (← pokupk-a + prodažba), Avstr-o-Ungarija ‘AustriaHungary’, kasier-domakin ‘treasurer and stewart’). Formations with suffixes like den-onošt-ie ‘twenty four hours’ (← den ‘day’ + nošt ‘night’ + suffix -ie) are also regarded as coordinative compounds.

3056

XVI. Word-formation in the individual European languages − Slavic

3.3. Adjectival composition The formation of compound adjectives is an active process in present-day Bulgarian (Perniška 1980; Dejanova et al. 1980). The components are linked with or without an interfix (igl-o-list-en ‘coniferous; lit. needle-o-leaf-SUFF’, sedem-strun-en ‘seven-string’) or with a “quasi interfix” (vsek-i-dnev-en ‘everyday’). The second component is shaped by a suffix (pet-o-ăgal-en ‘pentagonal’, rus-o-kos-0̸ ‘fair-haired’). The most common suffixes are -en- and -iv-. Adjectives of the type bjalo-zeleno-červen ‘white-green-red’ are rare and not typical of Bulgarian.

3.3.1. Determinative adjectival compounds Compounds with an adjectival head are of the following types. Compounds whose second component is identical with an autonomous adjective: N+A: pravd-o-podoben ‘plausible; lit: truth-similar’; A+A: svetl-o-zelen ‘light green’, tămn-o-červen ‘dark red’; A[