What is a word in Brokpa?

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-289
Author(s):  
Pema Wangdi

Abstract This paper investigates the structure of phonological word and grammatical word in Brokpa, a Tibeto-Burman (Trans-Himalayan) language of Bhutan. Defining features of a phonological word include stress, tone, and segmental properties. A grammatical word is defined based on conventionalized coherence and meaning, fixed order of morphemes, and its behaviour in relation to derivational and inflectional marking. Grammatical and phonological words in Brokpa coincide in most instances. Typical mismatches include words involving non-cohering compounds and non-cohering reduplication. A formal distinction between phonological and grammatical word is the key to our understanding of the interactions between different parts of grammar in Brokpa, and help resolve potential ambiguities of the term “word” in this language.

Author(s):  
Katarzyna I. Wojtylak

Different sorts of phonological and grammatical criteria can be used to identify wordhood in Murui, a Witotoan language from Northwest Amazonia. A phonological word is determined on entirely phonological principles. Its key indicators include prosody (stress) and segmental phonology (vowel length). A phonological word is further produced by applying relevant phonological processes within it and not across its word boundaries. The further criterion is moraicity which requires that the minimal phonological word contains at least two moras. A grammatical word, determined entirely on grammatical principles, consists of one lexical root to which morphological processes (affixation, cliticization, and reduplication) are applied. The components of a grammatical word are cohesive and occur in a relatively fixed order. Although Murui grammatical and phonological words mostly coincide, the ‘mismatches’ include nominal compounds (that is, one phonological word consisting of two grammatical words), verbal root reduplication (one grammatical but two phonological words), and clitics.


Author(s):  
Jolanta Vaskelienė

The authors writing fiction works often do not limit themselves to conventional (fixed in dictionaries) lexicon and use neologisms. Neologisms are the derivatives which are not included in Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian, headings of Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian, Digital Supplementary Card Index of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, and Database of Lithuanian Neologisms. The paper discusses the formation, semantics, and particularities of usage of adjective neologisms found in Albinas Žukauskas’ poetry works compiled in two volumes of collected writings. After analysis of 183 neologisms found in the works mentioned, the following conclusions have been drawn: The adjective neologisms derived by means of all four types of derivation denoting various features are used in Žukauskas’ texts. The compounds make the largest group of neologisms (46 %); 83 % of compounds are formed with a connective vowel. The compounds are formed from the words belonging to different parts of speech, but most frequently from the adjective and the noun or two adjectives. The derivatives of suffixes (30 % of all neologisms) are formed by adding 18 different suffixes: the largest group is composed of adjectives with -inis, -ė. The derivatives of prefixes make 10 % of all neologisms. The derivatives with the prefix po- denoting not full feature and be- derivatives denoting missing entity with the help of an underlying word dominate this group. Meanwhile,13 % of neologisms are of mixed formation or derivatives with the not fixed order of derivation stages. There are very little derivations with endings – they make only 1 % of all neologisms. The absolute majority of neologisms are based on the underlying words included in the dictionaries. There are derivations of atypical derivation, e.g. the author uses the underlying words of complex morphemic structure or three underlying words. The meaning of some neologisms is clear without a context; within a broader context the meaning of all adjectives becomes clear, even of those whose lexical meaning does not coincide with derivational meaning and the ones that have transferred meaning. Many derivatives are the names of colours. Some neologisms being of more complex structure essentially mean the same as the underlying words, and the formative of derivation only strengthens the meaning. A part of neologisms is formed due to analogy and is used alongside the derivative that has the same affix of derivation; other neologisms are used due to economy, repetition, specification, emphasis, or drawing the addressee’s attention. Since the texts are versed, the neologisms are also used for versification; the poet usually chooses the compounds with connecting vowels because they are by one syllable longer. All neologisms are expressed by epithets: some of them are words with the direct meaning (they denote objective features of reality), others (individual epithets) subjectively describe the entities, reveal the poet’s awareness of life and original vision. In the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, 90 % of examples of neologisms were not found. Therefore, the majority of adjective neologisms might be created by the poet himself.


Author(s):  
Virginia TASSINARI ◽  
Ezio MANZINI ◽  
Maurizio TELI ◽  
Liesbeth HUYBRECHTS

The issue of design and democracy is an urgent and rather controversial one. Democracy has always been a core theme in design research, but in the past years it has shifted in meaning. The current discourse in design research that has been working in a participatory way on common issues in given local contexts, has developed an enhanced focus on rethinking democracy. This is the topic of some recent design conferences, such PDC2018, Nordes2017 and DRS2018, and of the DESIS Philosophy Talk #6 “Regenerating Democracy?” (www.desis-philosophytalks.org), from which this track originates. To reflect on the role and responsibility of designers in a time where democracy in its various forms is often put at risk seems an urgent matter to us. The concern for the ways in which the democratic discourse is put at risk in many different parts of the word is registered outside the design community (for instance by philosophers such as Noam Chomsky), as well as within (see for instance Manzini’s and Margolin’s call Design Stand Up (http://www.democracy-design.org). Therefore, the need to articulate a discussion on this difficult matter, and to find a common vocabulary we can share to talk about it. One of the difficulties encountered for instance when discussing this issue, is that the word “democracy” is understood in different ways, in relation to the traditions and contexts in which it is framed. Philosophically speaking, there are diverse discourses on democracy that currently inspire design researchers and theorists, such as Arendt, Dewey, Negri and Hardt, Schmitt, Mouffe, Rancière, Agamben, Rawls, Habermas, Latour, Gramsci, whose positions on this topic are very diverse. How can these authors guide us to further articulate this discussion? In which ways can these philosophers support and enrich design’s innovation discourses on design and democracy, and guide our thinking in addressing sensitive and yet timely questions, such as what design can do in what seems to be dark times for democracy, and whether design can possibly contribute to enrich the current democratic ecosystems, making them more strong and resilient?


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gionata Luisoni ◽  
Thomas Gehrmann ◽  
Hasko Stenzel
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
John Llewelyn

The Early Mediaeval Scottish philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus shook traditional doctrines of logical universality and logical particularity by arguing for a metaphysics of ‘formal distinction’. Why did the Nineteenth Century poet and self-styled philosopher Gerard Manley Hopkins find this revolutionary teaching so appealing? John Llewelyn answers this question by casting light on various neologisms introduced by Hopkins and reveals how Hopkins endorses Scotus’s claim that being and existence are grounded in doing and willing. Drawing on modern respon ses to Scotus made by Heidegger, Peirce, Arendt, Leibniz, Hume, Reid, Derrida and Deleuze, Llewelyn’s own response shows by way of bonus why it would be a pity to suppose that the rewards of reading Scotus and Hopkins are available only to those who share their theological presuppositions


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 257-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirzad Azad

In spite of her troubled presidency at home and premature, ignominious exit from power, Park Geun-hye made serious attempts to bolster the main direction of the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) foreign policy toward the Middle East. A collaborative drive for accomplishing a new momentous boom was by and large a dominant and recurring theme in the Park government’s overall approach to the region. Park enjoyed both personal motivation as well as politico-economic justifications to push for such arduous yet potentially viable objective. Although the ROK’s yearning for a second boom in the Middle East was not ultimately accomplished under the Park presidency, nonetheless, the very aspiration played a crucial role in either rekindling or initiating policy measures in South Korea’s orientation toward different parts of a greater Middle East region, extending from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to Morocco.


1968 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 308-312
Author(s):  
Ronald G. Elmslie ◽  
Nanette Harvey

1963 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-224
Author(s):  
Raymond C. Mellinger ◽  
Jalileh A. Mansour ◽  
Richmond W. Smith

ABSTRACT A reference standard is widely sought for use in the quantitative bioassay of pituitary gonadotrophin recovered from urine. The biologic similarity of pooled urinary extracts obtained from large numbers of subjects, utilizing groups of different age and sex, preparing and assaying the materials by varying techniques in different parts of the world, has lead to a general acceptance of such preparations as international gonadotrophin reference standards. In the present study, however, the extract of pooled urine from a small number of young women is shown to produce a significantly different bioassay response from that of the reference materials. Gonadotrophins of individual subjects likewise varied from the multiple subject standards in many instances. The cause of these differences is thought to be due to the modifying influence of non-hormonal substances extracted from urine with the gonadotrophin and not necessarily to variations in the gonadotrophins themselves. Such modifying factors might have similar effects in a comparative assay of pooled extracts contributed by many subjects, but produce significant variations when material from individual subjects is compared. It is concluded that the expression of potency of a gonadotrophic extract in terms of pooled reference material to which it is not essentially similar may diminish rather than enhance the validity of the assay.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document