Clitics and inflections (from one-syllable words thread)

[natalyanders]

This is a story in 100 one-syllable words written without repeating a single word. It was prompted by a challenge from Marilyn vos Savant in one of her Parade magazine columns. The string of ordinal numbers feels like a bit of a cheat, but hey, this is hard. Not previously published.

Last night grew warm as could be when my dog ate some of Dan’s pie. It looked safe for him to eat this, at least from the joy on his face. There was more left, so he had a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth piece too! That did not seem good, though, since poor Spot got sick. Next thing I knew, pet cops knocked. “I’ve done no bad deed, sirs!” Yet they took me. “Vile man,” said Bob, dressed in blue. “But what should we do now? Dine out?” “If you act right, law men don’t care!”

[hwhatting]

Last night grew warm as could be when my dog ate some of Dan’s pie. It looked safe for him to eat this, at least from the joy on his face. There was more left, so he had a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth piece too! That did not seem good, though, since poor Spot got sick. Next thing I knew, pet cops knocked. “I’ve done no bad deed, sirs!” Yet they took me. “Vile man,” said Bob, dressed in blue. “But what should we do now? Dine out?” “If you act right, law men don’t care!”

You count I've as one word?

[jal]

You count I've as one word?

Obviously. Also "don't". But that's perfectly legit: 've and n't are clitics, and the whole idea of a clitic is that it's in the same word.


JAL

[Travis B.]

You count I've as one word?

Obviously. Also "don't". But that's perfectly legit: 've and n't are clitics, and the whole idea of a clitic is that it's in the same word.

It is in the same phonological word but not the same syntactic word.

But don't still counts, because in present-day English -n't behaves as an inflection rather than as a clitic, i.e. because it undergoes fronting with the attached verb which ought to become separated from it were it a clitic, as shown by "Can't you shut up already" rather than *"Can you-n't shut up already", and because it causes irregular stem changes in certain verbs, namely do /duː/ versus don't /doʊnt/ and will versus won't, which should not take place were it a clitic.

[jal]

It is in the same phonological word but not the same syntactic word.

True, but natalyanders didn't mention what type of words were concerned. Apparently the former.

But don't still counts, because in present-day English -n't behaves as an inflection rather than as a clitic, i.e. because it undergoes fronting with the attached verb which ought to become separated from it were it a clitic

I'm not sure whether that's true - not all clitics can attach to anything (like English genetive 's). I'd find it difficult to give an example where the abbreviated forms of "to be" could be seperated from the subject noun.


JAL

[clawgrip]

This book I bought's pretty boring.

[jal]

This book I bought's pretty boring.

Right, totally didn't think of these kind of construction. Facepalms. Thanks.


JAL

[linguoboy]

But don't still counts, because in present-day English -n't behaves as an inflection rather than as a clitic, i.e. because it undergoes fronting with the attached verb which ought to become separated from it were it a clitic

I'm not sure whether that's true - not all clitics can attach to anything (like English genetive 's). I'd find it difficult to give an example where the abbreviated forms of "to be" could be seperated from the subject noun.

As with most such definitions, there's no hard line but a spectrum of behaviour. The more limited the positions in which an affixed morpheme can appear, the more likely it is to be called an "inflection" rather than a "clitic".

The criteria are summarised here, but I recommend reading Zwicky and Pullum's seminal article on the subject.

[Richard W]

I'm not sure whether that's true - not all clitics can attach to anything (like English genetive 's). I'd find it difficult to give an example where the abbreviated forms of "to be" could be seperated from the subject noun.

So'm I to take it that you consider this sentence either not an example or not proper English? When's the decision due?

As to the example sentence, I'm not sure that 'law man' is actually two words.

[Nortaneous]

You count I've as one word?

Obviously. Also "don't". But that's perfectly legit: 've and n't are clitics, and the whole idea of a clitic is that it's in the same word.

It is in the same phonological word but not the same syntactic word.

But don't still counts, because in present-day English -n't behaves as an inflection rather than as a clitic, i.e. because it undergoes fronting with the attached verb which ought to become separated from it were it a clitic, as shown by "Can't you shut up already" rather than *"Can you-n't shut up already", and because it causes irregular stem changes in certain verbs, namely do /duː/ versus don't /doʊnt/ and will versus won't, which should not take place were it a clitic.

What about -'ll? It would be odd for future tense to be marked by an inflection on the subject, but when the subject is a pronoun, there are stem changes for most of the forms: /ai ju hi/ + /-l/ > /ɑl jʊl hɪl/.

(that might be /al/ or /ɔl/, not sure)

[Travis B.]

You count I've as one word?

Obviously. Also "don't". But that's perfectly legit: 've and n't are clitics, and the whole idea of a clitic is that it's in the same word.

It is in the same phonological word but not the same syntactic word.

But don't still counts, because in present-day English -n't behaves as an inflection rather than as a clitic, i.e. because it undergoes fronting with the attached verb which ought to become separated from it were it a clitic, as shown by "Can't you shut up already" rather than *"Can you-n't shut up already", and because it causes irregular stem changes in certain verbs, namely do /duː/ versus don't /doʊnt/ and will versus won't, which should not take place were it a clitic.

What about -'ll? It would be odd for future tense to be marked by an inflection on the subject, but when the subject is a pronoun, there are stem changes for most of the forms: /ai ju hi/ + /-l/ > /ɑl jʊl hɪl/.

(that might be /al/ or /ɔl/, not sure)

In my own dialect I analyze -'ll as unambiguously a clitic, since the change of /aɪl/ > [aɤ] is entirely regular, and coexists with the uncoalesced [aeɯ̞], and I do not have laxing of vowels in pronouns before /l/. (There is very frequently [jɯ̞] for you'll, but this is best analyzed as the reduced pronoun /jə/ plus /l/. See the parallel in how you're [jʁ̩(ː)] can be analyzed as /jə/ plus /r/.)

Even in cases where dialects do have truly irregular forms for verbal clitics attached to pronouns, I would still categorize them as clitics because they still syntactically behave as them. E.g. they can be attached to any subject, not just a pronoun, and when attached to NPs they attach to the end of the NP rather than to the end of the noun, as they would were they inflections.

[Richard W]

Even in cases where dialects do have truly irregular forms for verbal clitics attached to pronouns, I would still categorize them as clitics because they still syntactically behave as them. E.g. they can be attached to any subject, not just a pronoun, and when attached to NPs they attach to the end of the NP rather than to the end of the noun, as they would were they inflections.

But you're assuming that the Saxon genitive is indeed a clitic and not an inflection. Perhaps it's English plural formation that is anomalous!

However, transformations show up a difference between negative and verbal clitics (or whatever).

They'll go => Why'll they go, not *Why go they'll?
They won't go => Why won't they go?, not *Why will theyn't go?
They will not go => Why will they not go?
They'll never go => Why'll they never go?

The verbal clitics move independently; the negative clitics don't.

[Travis B.]

Even in cases where dialects do have truly irregular forms for verbal clitics attached to pronouns, I would still categorize them as clitics because they still syntactically behave as them. E.g. they can be attached to any subject, not just a pronoun, and when attached to NPs they attach to the end of the NP rather than to the end of the noun, as they would were they inflections.

But you're assuming that the Saxon genitive is indeed a clitic and not an inflection. Perhaps it's English plural formation that is anomalous!

However, transformations show up a difference between negative and verbal clitics (or whatever).

They'll go => Why'll they go, not *Why go they'll?
They won't go => Why won't they go?, not *Why will theyn't go?
They will not go => Why will they not go?
They'll never go => Why'll they never go?

The verbal clitics move independently; the negative clitics don't.

That's because the verbal clitics are clitics, whereas the negative "clitics" aren't clitics.

[Richard W]

That's because the verbal clitics are clitics, whereas the negative "clitics" aren't clitics.

I was offering better evidence that the verbal clitics were clitics. Your argument to show that they aren't inflections aren't convincing; why can't inflections be added to phrases?

[Salmoneus]

That's because the verbal clitics are clitics, whereas the negative "clitics" aren't clitics.

I was offering better evidence that the verbal clitics were clitics. Your argument to show that they aren't inflections aren't convincing; why can't inflections be added to phrases?

Because that's the defining feature of 'inflections' as opposed to 'clitics'. That's what the words mean.

[vec]

That's because the verbal clitics are clitics, whereas the negative "clitics" aren't clitics.

I was offering better evidence that the verbal clitics were clitics. Your argument to show that they aren't inflections aren't convincing; why can't inflections be added to phrases?

If something attaches to a phrase rather than a word, it is a clitic, not an inflection. The ambiguity being argued about here only occurs for affixes that only attach to words.