One morphological device that I keep wanting to use, but never find a sufficiently interesting use for, is reduplication. Let's try and find a really gratuitous use of it, and overviewing some of the strange things languages do with it.
Some of the trivial stuff reduplication does is:
- form plurals
- form habituals, form perfectives
- form intensives, diminutives, etc
The strangest use I have come across is Chukchi: the absolutive singular for some nouns is formed by reduplication. This violates two proposed universals, so that's a lot of bang for a buck!
So, what other weird thing could we use reduplication for? It feels like this is a question where the usual suspects don't quite cut it.
Let's assume, unless otherwise specified, that I am talking about full reduplication of a lexeme.
1) Things with numerals (numeral symbols express the actual value, letters express the way it's said in the language, base ten is assumed but this is a trivial thing to reapply to some other base.)
one = 1
oneone = 11
two = 2
twotwo = 12
three = 3
threethree = 13
...
oneoneone = 21
twotwotwo = 22
threethreethree = 23
With reasonably short numerals, this isn't even particularly clumsy. Heck, you can have some pretty big numbers before running into finnish-style numeral length (kaksikymmentäkaksi = twotwotwo).
With just a few extra tricks - say, having a dedicated short form for some particular milestones, this wouldn't be unworkable.
2) Indefiniteness
Have reduplicated nouns signify "any old ...".
(Somehow, it seems this would be rather natural with some type of intonation pattern).
3) Reflexivity by reduplication of the verb
I see see in a mirror = I see myself in a mirror
4) Reflexivity of possession by reduplicating the object:
I met wife wife when I was twenty three
I met my wife when I was twenty three
he called brother brother
he called his brother
5) Comparatives
Double the comparand which is characterized by more of the quality that is compared, use some special conjunction or just apposition for the comparands or maybe object marking or something:
I I he are strong: I am stronger than he
I I am strong him: I am stronger than he
For "oblique comparisons", try this on for size:
I I am smart smart him strong: I am smarter than he is strong.
I eat eat: me and my associates are eating
I approach approach house: I and my associates are approaching a house / I am approaching a village
7) Ordinals
man man = the first man
man man man = the second man
I imagine this could actually exist for a few lexemes in some actual language!
8) Copula! E.g.
it red red: it is red
This also leads to an interesting thing w.r.t. verbs - maybe
it eat eat = it is edible
9) Non-referentiality!
So, one example of a non-referential pronoun is "it" in "it is raining". Imagine a language where this has to be "it it is raining".
10) Adjectives denoting being in possession of something, e.g.
peg-leg peg-leg man: peg-legged man
or maybe just
peg-leg-leg man
In a language where it's done by just reduplicating a syllable, this does not seem particularly out of the ordinary.
11) Mandatory reduplication of initial and final elements of parenthetical statements as a form of bracketing.
12) Particles of phrase verbs (either the verb or the particle needs doubling)
13) Vocatives
This seems a case that reasonably could have developed a reduplicated form in some language in the world.
14) Wherever the syntax has a null element that is actually syntactically present (e.g. omitted subordinating conjunction), a floating reduplication emerges that needs to find a host:
I didn't know that she's famous -> I didn't know __ she's famous ->
"I didn't know know she's famous" or "I didn't know she's she's famous".
Under some circumstances, other syntactic phenomena could shuffle where this turns up in unexpected ways.
15) Congruence with a certain noun class by reduplicating verbs or adjectives or pronouns.
Undoubtedly, stranger ideas are possible.
Without "milestones" (clipped synonyms),
ReplyDeletethe square of two = four
the square of twotwo = fourfourfourfourfourfourfourfourfourfourfourfourfourfourfour,
the square of three = nine,
the square of threethree = nineninenineninenineninenineninenineninenineninenineninenineninenine,
the square of four = sixsix
the square of fourfour = sixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsixsix,
etc.
Oh god, what have I wrought!
Delete