> You may be right. The problem I was trying to fix, when I said
> that _telefonino_ 'mobile' is derived nonproductively from
> _telefonino_ 'phonelet', is how to stop TELEF/mobile blocking
> productively formed telefon+ino. If TELEF/mobile is derived
> by "ino-affixation" from TELEFONO, then its sense should
> override the default 'phonelet' sense, and we have no way to
> generate the regular 'phonelet' lexeme.
>
I don't think we have to worry about this. If there is a lexical
structure that licenses both possibilities, there is no reason to
suppose that one should 'block' the other (any more than the fact
that most passive sentences could equally be rendered as active
ones should block passives, or vice versa).
> I guess the standard WG solution would be for TELEF/mobile
> to be a subtype of the telefon+ino lexeme.
You could do that, but as I say, I don't think you have to.
>
> > Structures licensing productive patterns need to be arranged
> > around some general class (eg Verbs have Nouns as subjects), but
> > specific instantiations of the pattern can be single out and
> > associated with special properties. In English we have also got
> > things like phrasal verbs (_get over_ is temporary in (a), but lexical
> > in (b):
> >
> > (a) We got over the river in a punt.
> > (b) We got over the flu in 3 weeks.)
> >
> > and idiomatic phrases (kick the bucket etc), which work in the
> > same way.
>
> Right. And this is solved in WG by having a subtype of GET for
> the idiom.
>
> [I'm not sure WG is right, btw. A subtype of OVER could work
> equally well. My vote is for a subtype of "get + over", where
> the sense is associated with the whole syntactic pattern.]
>
I (think I) second that motion.
Jasp
> --And.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|