WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.994 align:middle line:90% 00:00:00.994 --> 00:00:04.473 align:middle line:90% [CREAKING, CLICKING] 00:00:04.473 --> 00:00:10.934 align:middle line:90% 00:00:10.934 --> 00:00:13.540 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: All right, so welcome to day 00:00:13.540 --> 00:00:16.840 align:middle line:90% two of morphology. 00:00:16.840 --> 00:00:18.730 align:middle line:84% Last time, I was trying to get you 00:00:18.730 --> 00:00:21.303 align:middle line:90% to believe that it's worth-- 00:00:21.303 --> 00:00:22.720 align:middle line:84% for trying to think about what you 00:00:22.720 --> 00:00:26.200 align:middle line:84% have in your mind, the representations you have 00:00:26.200 --> 00:00:29.685 align:middle line:84% in your mind of what you can do with your native language-- 00:00:29.685 --> 00:00:31.270 align:middle line:84% if we're trying to think about that, 00:00:31.270 --> 00:00:35.290 align:middle line:84% that it's useful to think, yeah, your mental list 00:00:35.290 --> 00:00:38.860 align:middle line:84% of elements of your basic elements of your language 00:00:38.860 --> 00:00:41.950 align:middle line:84% consists, maybe, of a list of morphemes, 00:00:41.950 --> 00:00:46.000 align:middle line:84% where morphemes are these units that can combine 00:00:46.000 --> 00:00:48.970 align:middle line:90% in various ways, as we've seen. 00:00:48.970 --> 00:00:51.850 align:middle line:84% Each morpheme we're going to need to tag with information 00:00:51.850 --> 00:00:58.820 align:middle line:84% about its sound, how it's pronounced, its meaning, 00:00:58.820 --> 00:01:02.530 align:middle line:84% and then information like is it a bound morpheme 00:01:02.530 --> 00:01:03.670 align:middle line:90% or a free morpheme? 00:01:03.670 --> 00:01:05.560 align:middle line:84% That is, is it the kind of morpheme 00:01:05.560 --> 00:01:09.290 align:middle line:84% that needs to combine with another morpheme or not? 00:01:09.290 --> 00:01:12.580 align:middle line:84% So there are free morphemes like "cat," 00:01:12.580 --> 00:01:15.910 align:middle line:84% where, when we're listing its sound, 00:01:15.910 --> 00:01:18.460 align:middle line:84% will represent the fact that it's pronounced "cat," 00:01:18.460 --> 00:01:20.350 align:middle line:84% and when we're listing its meaning, 00:01:20.350 --> 00:01:22.300 align:middle line:84% will represent the fact that it refers 00:01:22.300 --> 00:01:24.040 align:middle line:84% to a certain type of small mammal. 00:01:24.040 --> 00:01:27.310 align:middle line:84% And when we're listing whether it's bound or free, 00:01:27.310 --> 00:01:29.980 align:middle line:84% we'll say that it's free because "cat" is a word. 00:01:29.980 --> 00:01:31.570 align:middle line:90% You can say it by itself. 00:01:31.570 --> 00:01:35.560 align:middle line:84% As opposed to the S at the end of a word like "cats," 00:01:35.560 --> 00:01:38.800 align:middle line:84% we'll say that's a bound morpheme because it's not 00:01:38.800 --> 00:01:43.170 align:middle line:90% a word on its own. 00:01:43.170 --> 00:01:45.780 align:middle line:84% And if we're talking about bound morphemes, 00:01:45.780 --> 00:01:48.872 align:middle line:84% we ran through bound morphemes from a bunch 00:01:48.872 --> 00:01:49.830 align:middle line:90% of different languages. 00:01:49.830 --> 00:01:52.290 align:middle line:84% We saw there are prefixes out there, there are suffixes, 00:01:52.290 --> 00:01:54.930 align:middle line:84% and there are other things we talked about-- infixes, 00:01:54.930 --> 00:01:56.188 align:middle line:90% various other kinds of things. 00:01:56.188 --> 00:01:58.230 align:middle line:84% There are other kinds of morphemes to talk about. 00:01:58.230 --> 00:02:00.340 align:middle line:90% We eventually will. 00:02:00.340 --> 00:02:02.287 align:middle line:84% But first-- so what I said here was first, 00:02:02.287 --> 00:02:04.620 align:middle line:84% another kind of information we're going to have to list. 00:02:04.620 --> 00:02:06.703 align:middle line:84% But actually, before that, is any of that unclear? 00:02:06.703 --> 00:02:08.800 align:middle line:90% Does that all make sense? 00:02:08.800 --> 00:02:11.975 align:middle line:84% Is everyone convinced of the existence of morphemes? 00:02:11.975 --> 00:02:14.100 align:middle line:84% Are you willing to at least assume that they exist? 00:02:14.100 --> 00:02:15.780 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:02:15.780 --> 00:02:18.840 align:middle line:84% So you're used to looking words up in the dictionary, 00:02:18.840 --> 00:02:20.370 align:middle line:84% but in your mental dictionary, maybe 00:02:20.370 --> 00:02:22.162 align:middle line:84% what you have are not words but morphemes-- 00:02:22.162 --> 00:02:26.200 align:middle line:84% things that are at least sometimes smaller than words. 00:02:26.200 --> 00:02:30.350 align:middle line:84% So another kind of information we're going to have to list. 00:02:30.350 --> 00:02:32.890 align:middle line:84% Think about the bound morpheme "-al" 00:02:32.890 --> 00:02:35.740 align:middle line:84% that shows up at the end of industrial, or national, 00:02:35.740 --> 00:02:38.560 align:middle line:90% or autumnal. 00:02:38.560 --> 00:02:41.270 align:middle line:84% That's limited in where it can go. 00:02:41.270 --> 00:02:45.490 align:middle line:84% So there aren't words like "assert-al" or "impress-al," 00:02:45.490 --> 00:02:48.705 align:middle line:90% or "industrializ-al," yeah? 00:02:48.705 --> 00:02:50.080 align:middle line:84% Again, let me pause and make sure 00:02:50.080 --> 00:02:52.082 align:middle line:84% that I'm not saying things that are just false. 00:02:52.082 --> 00:02:54.040 align:middle line:84% I think I told you there's a danger when you're 00:02:54.040 --> 00:02:55.748 align:middle line:84% a linguist you gradually get out of touch 00:02:55.748 --> 00:02:56.920 align:middle line:90% with your native language. 00:02:56.920 --> 00:03:00.790 align:middle line:84% But I'm pretty sure this is true. 00:03:00.790 --> 00:03:02.680 align:middle line:84% Is there a generalization about the kinds 00:03:02.680 --> 00:03:06.460 align:middle line:90% of things you can add -al to? 00:03:06.460 --> 00:03:08.090 align:middle line:90% What are they? 00:03:08.090 --> 00:03:08.590 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:03:08.590 --> 00:03:09.230 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Nouns. 00:03:09.230 --> 00:03:10.438 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Nouns, Yeah. 00:03:10.438 --> 00:03:12.310 align:middle line:84% So "industry" and "nation" and "autumn" 00:03:12.310 --> 00:03:15.280 align:middle line:84% are all nouns, as opposed to "assert," and "impress," 00:03:15.280 --> 00:03:17.890 align:middle line:84% and "industrialize," which are not nouns. 00:03:17.890 --> 00:03:18.843 align:middle line:90% What are they? 00:03:18.843 --> 00:03:19.550 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Verbs. 00:03:19.550 --> 00:03:21.410 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Verbs, Yep. 00:03:21.410 --> 00:03:23.690 align:middle line:84% And if anybody is listening to this and thinking, 00:03:23.690 --> 00:03:24.470 align:middle line:90% nouns, verbs? 00:03:24.470 --> 00:03:25.640 align:middle line:90% What the heck? 00:03:25.640 --> 00:03:26.360 align:middle line:90% Don't worry. 00:03:26.360 --> 00:03:28.820 align:middle line:84% We will talk more about this eventually. 00:03:28.820 --> 00:03:38.490 align:middle line:84% Yep, OK, so we just said there is a word "industrial" 00:03:38.490 --> 00:03:39.600 align:middle line:90% because "-al"-- 00:03:39.600 --> 00:03:41.430 align:middle line:84% maybe I should write this on the board. 00:03:41.430 --> 00:03:44.940 align:middle line:84% Or I would if I thought there was chalk anywhere, anywhere 00:03:44.940 --> 00:03:45.540 align:middle line:90% at all. 00:03:45.540 --> 00:03:47.880 align:middle line:84% Here we go, I'll write it on the board right here. 00:03:47.880 --> 00:03:50.550 align:middle line:90% That will be helpful. 00:03:50.550 --> 00:03:51.300 align:middle line:90% No, I won't. 00:03:51.300 --> 00:03:53.400 align:middle line:90% I'll put it over here. 00:03:53.400 --> 00:03:56.370 align:middle line:84% We've just said "-al" attaches to nouns and can't attach 00:03:56.370 --> 00:03:57.220 align:middle line:90% to verbs. 00:03:57.220 --> 00:04:00.520 align:middle line:84% That's what's going on in the first of the list there. 00:04:00.520 --> 00:04:04.400 align:middle line:84% So we've got a noun can have "-al" on it. 00:04:04.400 --> 00:04:05.985 align:middle line:84% I'll write that again over there. 00:04:05.985 --> 00:04:08.730 align:middle line:90% 00:04:08.730 --> 00:04:10.440 align:middle line:84% This is surely not the most efficient way 00:04:10.440 --> 00:04:12.420 align:middle line:90% to use the blackboard. 00:04:12.420 --> 00:04:13.470 align:middle line:90% Is it necessary? 00:04:13.470 --> 00:04:14.280 align:middle line:90% Does it work? 00:04:14.280 --> 00:04:17.279 align:middle line:84% Can everybody see one or another of the things that I wrote? 00:04:17.279 --> 00:04:19.410 align:middle line:84% Is there anybody who can only see one of the things 00:04:19.410 --> 00:04:20.779 align:middle line:90% that I wrote? 00:04:20.779 --> 00:04:23.450 align:middle line:84% Yeah, OK, so it's worth it to write it twice. 00:04:23.450 --> 00:04:26.880 align:middle line:84% OK, so "-al" attaches to nouns and doesn't attach to verbs. 00:04:26.880 --> 00:04:28.520 align:middle line:84% That's why you can say "industrial." 00:04:28.520 --> 00:04:31.850 align:middle line:84% It's why you can't say "industrializ-al," yeah? 00:04:31.850 --> 00:04:36.230 align:middle line:84% Why can you say, "industrializational"? 00:04:36.230 --> 00:04:37.700 align:middle line:90% That's a word. 00:04:37.700 --> 00:04:39.590 align:middle line:90% It's kind of a long word. 00:04:39.590 --> 00:04:42.170 align:middle line:84% "Industrializational," I guess, means having 00:04:42.170 --> 00:04:45.110 align:middle line:90% to do with industrialization. 00:04:45.110 --> 00:04:45.830 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:04:45.830 --> 00:04:47.570 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Because "industrialization" is a noun? 00:04:47.570 --> 00:04:49.528 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Industrialization" is a noun. 00:04:49.528 --> 00:04:51.920 align:middle line:84% So "-ation" is attaching to "industrialize," 00:04:51.920 --> 00:04:55.110 align:middle line:84% and it is apparently creating a noun. 00:04:55.110 --> 00:04:57.320 align:middle line:84% So at least for some kinds of morphemes, 00:04:57.320 --> 00:05:00.410 align:middle line:84% we're going to want to list the kinds of things they attach to, 00:05:00.410 --> 00:05:02.790 align:middle line:84% their input, and then their output. 00:05:02.790 --> 00:05:06.110 align:middle line:84% So "-ation" can attach to a verb like "industrialize," 00:05:06.110 --> 00:05:08.270 align:middle line:90% and it can create a noun. 00:05:08.270 --> 00:05:14.030 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so "-ation" attaches to a verb, 00:05:14.030 --> 00:05:16.670 align:middle line:90% and then what you get is a noun. 00:05:16.670 --> 00:05:23.270 align:middle line:84% Say that again, if you take a verb and add "-ation," 00:05:23.270 --> 00:05:25.550 align:middle line:90% what you end up with is a noun. 00:05:25.550 --> 00:05:27.525 align:middle line:90% And that sort of-- 00:05:27.525 --> 00:05:29.900 align:middle line:84% we have intuitions about which things are nouns and which 00:05:29.900 --> 00:05:30.483 align:middle line:90% things aren't. 00:05:30.483 --> 00:05:33.920 align:middle line:84% We have the intuition that "industrialization" is a noun, 00:05:33.920 --> 00:05:37.290 align:middle line:84% but now we can check our intuition by asking ourselves, 00:05:37.290 --> 00:05:39.560 align:middle line:84% well, we know that "-al" attaches to nouns. 00:05:39.560 --> 00:05:41.540 align:middle line:84% Can we attach "-al" to "industrialization"? 00:05:41.540 --> 00:05:42.180 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:05:42.180 --> 00:05:47.280 align:middle line:84% Yes, our intuition is right; that's a noun. 00:05:47.280 --> 00:05:50.660 align:middle line:84% OK, cool, so there are at least some kinds of morphemes which 00:05:50.660 --> 00:05:54.350 align:middle line:84% convert words into other types of words, 00:05:54.350 --> 00:05:59.570 align:middle line:84% convert nouns into verbs or, in the case of "-al," 00:05:59.570 --> 00:06:02.300 align:middle line:90% verbs into adjectives-- 00:06:02.300 --> 00:06:04.520 align:middle line:90% sorry, nouns into adjectives. 00:06:04.520 --> 00:06:11.090 align:middle line:84% OK, so adding some things to the list I showed you before, 00:06:11.090 --> 00:06:14.853 align:middle line:84% the lexicon has morphemes in it, and morphemes all contain 00:06:14.853 --> 00:06:16.520 align:middle line:84% the information about sound and meaning, 00:06:16.520 --> 00:06:18.890 align:middle line:84% and whether it's bound or free, and if it's bound, 00:06:18.890 --> 00:06:21.320 align:middle line:84% what kind of bound morpheme it is-- a prefix, or a suffix, 00:06:21.320 --> 00:06:26.070 align:middle line:84% or a tone, or an infix, or whatever-- 00:06:26.070 --> 00:06:29.420 align:middle line:84% and also what kind of morpheme they can attach to. 00:06:29.420 --> 00:06:31.580 align:middle line:84% Do they attach to nouns, or verbs, or what? 00:06:31.580 --> 00:06:36.620 align:middle line:84% And, at least for some kinds of morphemes, what the result is-- 00:06:36.620 --> 00:06:39.090 align:middle line:84% whether you create a noun, or a verb, or an adjective, 00:06:39.090 --> 00:06:39.590 align:middle line:90% or whatever. 00:06:39.590 --> 00:06:41.510 align:middle line:90% Yeah, they both sound OK. 00:06:41.510 --> 00:06:45.540 align:middle line:90% 00:06:45.540 --> 00:06:48.970 align:middle line:84% Actually, sometimes, we'll have to say more than that. 00:06:48.970 --> 00:06:52.920 align:middle line:84% So "sincere," "chaste," "scarce," "curious," 00:06:52.920 --> 00:06:55.110 align:middle line:90% "deep," "wide," and "warm"-- 00:06:55.110 --> 00:06:57.920 align:middle line:90% what are those? 00:06:57.920 --> 00:07:00.230 align:middle line:90% They're adjectives. 00:07:00.230 --> 00:07:04.910 align:middle line:84% And when you add "-ity" to "sincere," you get "sincerity." 00:07:04.910 --> 00:07:07.730 align:middle line:84% When you add "-ity" to "chaste," you get "chastity." 00:07:07.730 --> 00:07:10.956 align:middle line:84% And what are "sincerity" and "chastity"? 00:07:10.956 --> 00:07:12.238 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: They're nouns. 00:07:12.238 --> 00:07:13.530 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: They're nouns. 00:07:13.530 --> 00:07:16.080 align:middle line:84% So "-ity" is attaching to an adjective, 00:07:16.080 --> 00:07:18.300 align:middle line:90% and it's making a noun. 00:07:18.300 --> 00:07:22.570 align:middle line:84% When you add "-th" to "deep," you get "depth." 00:07:22.570 --> 00:07:25.870 align:middle line:84% Now, when you add "-th" to "wide," you get "width." 00:07:25.870 --> 00:07:28.000 align:middle line:84% So "-th" is attaching to an adjective, 00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:29.140 align:middle line:90% and what is it creating? 00:07:29.140 --> 00:07:30.450 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Noun. 00:07:30.450 --> 00:07:32.610 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: A noun, yeah. 00:07:32.610 --> 00:07:34.530 align:middle line:84% So here we have two suffixes that 00:07:34.530 --> 00:07:35.950 align:middle line:90% both seem to do the same thing. 00:07:35.950 --> 00:07:37.950 align:middle line:84% They both attach to adjectives and create nouns. 00:07:37.950 --> 00:07:41.340 align:middle line:90% 00:07:41.340 --> 00:07:43.680 align:middle line:84% But we're going to have to say something else, 00:07:43.680 --> 00:07:49.770 align:middle line:84% because you cannot say "deepity," or "sincereth." 00:07:49.770 --> 00:07:51.630 align:middle line:90% Yeah, those are not words. 00:07:51.630 --> 00:07:55.020 align:middle line:84% So you can't add "-th" to the adjectives at the top, 00:07:55.020 --> 00:07:58.590 align:middle line:84% and you can't add "-ity" to the adjectives at the bottom. 00:07:58.590 --> 00:08:00.210 align:middle line:84% So sometimes it's not enough to say, 00:08:00.210 --> 00:08:01.620 align:middle line:90% this attaches to adjectives. 00:08:01.620 --> 00:08:04.855 align:middle line:84% You have to say, it attaches to adjectives in this list, 00:08:04.855 --> 00:08:06.480 align:middle line:84% or we have to understand something more 00:08:06.480 --> 00:08:08.167 align:middle line:90% about the adjectives. 00:08:08.167 --> 00:08:10.000 align:middle line:84% Anybody have a guess about why there are two 00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:13.010 align:middle line:90% kinds of adjectives in English? 00:08:13.010 --> 00:08:13.670 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:08:13.670 --> 00:08:16.045 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I was going to say that some are Latin-derived, 00:08:16.045 --> 00:08:18.290 align:middle line:84% and others are just from Old English or Germanic. 00:08:18.290 --> 00:08:19.400 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I think you were going to be right, 00:08:19.400 --> 00:08:21.645 align:middle line:84% but did you convince yourself not to say that? 00:08:21.645 --> 00:08:24.020 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Because "scarce" does not come from Latin, so-- 00:08:24.020 --> 00:08:26.180 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, but it should have, yeah. 00:08:26.180 --> 00:08:29.650 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so the ones at the top, yes, look Latinate, 00:08:29.650 --> 00:08:30.650 align:middle line:90% you're absolutely right. 00:08:30.650 --> 00:08:34.010 align:middle line:84% And the ones at the bottom look Germanic. 00:08:34.010 --> 00:08:35.150 align:middle line:90% Yeah, that's right. 00:08:35.150 --> 00:08:38.570 align:middle line:84% So there are a few things like this where it's 00:08:38.570 --> 00:08:40.159 align:middle line:90% a result of English history-- 00:08:40.159 --> 00:08:42.459 align:middle line:84% that we have suffixes that we got from-- "-ity" 00:08:42.459 --> 00:08:46.145 align:middle line:84% is something that we got from French and "-th" 00:08:46.145 --> 00:08:48.770 align:middle line:84% is something we got from Germanic. 00:08:48.770 --> 00:08:53.067 align:middle line:84% And so yeah, these suffixes are maintaining their history 00:08:53.067 --> 00:08:53.900 align:middle line:90% to a certain extent. 00:08:53.900 --> 00:08:54.400 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:08:54.400 --> 00:08:54.477 align:middle line:90% 00:08:54.477 --> 00:08:57.060 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: "-ity," I don't know if this is a real thing or just 00:08:57.060 --> 00:08:59.450 align:middle line:84% me thinking, but it reminds me of Spanish "-idad." 00:08:59.450 --> 00:09:02.870 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: It is related to that, yes, Yeah, score. 00:09:02.870 --> 00:09:05.390 align:middle line:90% Yeah, good point, yep. 00:09:05.390 --> 00:09:09.290 align:middle line:84% OK, so I mean, you can be a native speaker of English 00:09:09.290 --> 00:09:10.590 align:middle line:90% and not know this. 00:09:10.590 --> 00:09:13.610 align:middle line:84% It's not like we are all remembering, oh, yeah, 00:09:13.610 --> 00:09:15.860 align:middle line:84% those are the Germanic adjectives, 00:09:15.860 --> 00:09:17.840 align:middle line:84% those are the Latinate adjectives. 00:09:17.840 --> 00:09:21.590 align:middle line:84% Be sure to add "-ity" to that one and "-th" to that one. 00:09:21.590 --> 00:09:23.450 align:middle line:84% But on some level, we have to say, yeah, 00:09:23.450 --> 00:09:25.670 align:middle line:84% there are adjectives of class 1 and adjectives 00:09:25.670 --> 00:09:26.960 align:middle line:90% of class 2 or something. 00:09:26.960 --> 00:09:29.915 align:middle line:84% There are purple adjectives and green adjectives or something. 00:09:29.915 --> 00:09:31.790 align:middle line:84% We have to distinguish these from each other. 00:09:31.790 --> 00:09:34.832 align:middle line:90% 00:09:34.832 --> 00:09:36.540 align:middle line:84% I'm giving you English examples, but this 00:09:36.540 --> 00:09:37.665 align:middle line:90% is a very common situation. 00:09:37.665 --> 00:09:41.690 align:middle line:84% Lots of languages have been in intense borrowing situations 00:09:41.690 --> 00:09:46.930 align:middle line:84% at some point in their history with weird results like this. 00:09:46.930 --> 00:09:53.720 align:middle line:84% OK, now we've talked about this a little bit. 00:09:53.720 --> 00:09:57.790 align:middle line:84% So I said when you add the plural suffix to "cats" 00:09:57.790 --> 00:10:00.850 align:middle line:84% and "dogs," one of the first things I said to you, 00:10:00.850 --> 00:10:03.790 align:middle line:84% it's pronounced differently on "cats" than it is on "dogs." 00:10:03.790 --> 00:10:07.570 align:middle line:84% Yeah, and we talked about why, and we're going 00:10:07.570 --> 00:10:09.820 align:middle line:90% to talk more about why later. 00:10:09.820 --> 00:10:11.890 align:middle line:84% This is the kind of thing that happens sometimes 00:10:11.890 --> 00:10:14.170 align:middle line:84% when you add one morpheme to another morpheme-- 00:10:14.170 --> 00:10:17.650 align:middle line:84% one or another or both of the morphemes changes a little bit. 00:10:17.650 --> 00:10:19.240 align:middle line:84% We'll talk a lot about this as we 00:10:19.240 --> 00:10:23.320 align:middle line:84% start talking about sound change, phonology, 00:10:23.320 --> 00:10:25.250 align:middle line:90% which is our next topic. 00:10:25.250 --> 00:10:29.710 align:middle line:84% But for now, we can just pause and notice, if you add "-al" 00:10:29.710 --> 00:10:31.870 align:middle line:84% to "electric," you get "electrical." 00:10:31.870 --> 00:10:34.990 align:middle line:84% But if you add "-ity" to "electric," 00:10:34.990 --> 00:10:37.780 align:middle line:90% you don't get "elec-trick-ity". 00:10:37.780 --> 00:10:39.315 align:middle line:90% You get "electricity." 00:10:39.315 --> 00:10:40.690 align:middle line:84% It's not because "elec-trick-ity" 00:10:40.690 --> 00:10:41.890 align:middle line:90% would be hard to say. 00:10:41.890 --> 00:10:45.890 align:middle line:84% Yeah, it's just we have this idiosyncratic sound change-- 00:10:45.890 --> 00:10:48.250 align:middle line:84% which we inherited, again, from French-- 00:10:48.250 --> 00:10:50.060 align:middle line:84% that softens the K to an S there. 00:10:50.060 --> 00:10:50.560 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:10:50.560 --> 00:10:52.000 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] idiosyncratic? 00:10:52.000 --> 00:10:52.870 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I'm sorry, say it again? 00:10:52.870 --> 00:10:54.578 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: What does "idiosyncratic" mean? 00:10:54.578 --> 00:10:57.760 align:middle line:84% Oh, "idiosyncratic" means-- what does it mean? 00:10:57.760 --> 00:10:59.510 align:middle line:84% What do I mean when I say "idiosyncratic?" 00:10:59.510 --> 00:11:01.720 align:middle line:84% It means you sometimes have to say, 00:11:01.720 --> 00:11:04.420 align:middle line:84% this particular morpheme has two different forms 00:11:04.420 --> 00:11:06.290 align:middle line:84% depending on what it combines with. 00:11:06.290 --> 00:11:07.850 align:middle line:84% So you have to say more about that. 00:11:07.850 --> 00:11:10.060 align:middle line:84% So "idiosyncratic" means special, having something 00:11:10.060 --> 00:11:11.830 align:middle line:90% special to do with that. 00:11:11.830 --> 00:11:15.880 align:middle line:84% So the suffix "-ic" at the end of "electric" 00:11:15.880 --> 00:11:19.000 align:middle line:84% will change to "-is" before "-ity." 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:21.160 align:middle line:84% And there's more to say than that, 00:11:21.160 --> 00:11:26.380 align:middle line:84% but you have to say something that has that consequence. 00:11:26.380 --> 00:11:31.360 align:middle line:84% Similarly, the past tense, it's like the plural suffix, which 00:11:31.360 --> 00:11:35.080 align:middle line:84% can be either "z" or "s," like in "cats" and "dogs," 00:11:35.080 --> 00:11:37.190 align:middle line:90% has a bunch of different forms. 00:11:37.190 --> 00:11:40.150 align:middle line:84% Sometimes, it can be more of a "d" sound like in "hummed." 00:11:40.150 --> 00:11:42.730 align:middle line:84% Sometimes it can be more of a "t" sound like in "leaped" 00:11:42.730 --> 00:11:47.290 align:middle line:84% [pronounced like "leapt"] And the verb itself can undergo 00:11:47.290 --> 00:11:49.180 align:middle line:84% changes when you add the suffix to it. 00:11:49.180 --> 00:11:51.340 align:middle line:84% So the past tense of "hum" is "hummed." 00:11:51.340 --> 00:11:53.047 align:middle line:90% That's all fairly peaceful. 00:11:53.047 --> 00:11:55.630 align:middle line:84% But the past tense of "leap" is not "leaped" [with "d" sound], 00:11:55.630 --> 00:11:58.270 align:middle line:90% it's "leaped" [with "t" sound]. 00:11:58.270 --> 00:12:01.900 align:middle line:84% The past tense "go" is not "goed," it's "went." 00:12:01.900 --> 00:12:03.730 align:middle line:90% This is a case where we-- 00:12:03.730 --> 00:12:05.290 align:middle line:90% it's what's called suppletion. 00:12:05.290 --> 00:12:08.500 align:middle line:84% So English speakers at some point 00:12:08.500 --> 00:12:10.810 align:middle line:84% in the history of English, for mysterious reasons 00:12:10.810 --> 00:12:13.540 align:middle line:84% of their own, decided that the past tense of "go" 00:12:13.540 --> 00:12:16.330 align:middle line:84% should borrow-- that "go" should borrow its past tense 00:12:16.330 --> 00:12:18.170 align:middle line:90% from another verb. 00:12:18.170 --> 00:12:20.050 align:middle line:84% So for the past tense of "go," we 00:12:20.050 --> 00:12:21.760 align:middle line:84% use the past tense of another verb, 00:12:21.760 --> 00:12:24.800 align:middle line:84% "wend," as in "to wend your way." 00:12:24.800 --> 00:12:27.640 align:middle line:84% And so the result of the past tense go, it's no longer "go." 00:12:27.640 --> 00:12:30.760 align:middle line:90% It Is now "went." 00:12:30.760 --> 00:12:32.230 align:middle line:90% Languages do things like this. 00:12:32.230 --> 00:12:34.870 align:middle line:84% It'd be interesting to try to understand why. 00:12:34.870 --> 00:12:37.690 align:middle line:84% Or similarly, "sing" and "sang," past tense of "sing," 00:12:37.690 --> 00:12:39.697 align:middle line:84% there's no "d" or "t" or anything. 00:12:39.697 --> 00:12:40.780 align:middle line:90% You just change the vowel. 00:12:40.780 --> 00:12:44.110 align:middle line:84% So there are cases where a morpheme 00:12:44.110 --> 00:12:45.790 align:middle line:84% will have different forms depending 00:12:45.790 --> 00:12:47.230 align:middle line:90% on what it's combining with. 00:12:47.230 --> 00:12:49.570 align:middle line:84% That's the quick and dirty way of describing everything 00:12:49.570 --> 00:12:52.650 align:middle line:90% that's on the screen here. 00:12:52.650 --> 00:12:54.520 align:middle line:84% The technical term for what's going on here, 00:12:54.520 --> 00:12:56.228 align:middle line:84% we say that when you have a morpheme that 00:12:56.228 --> 00:12:58.810 align:middle line:84% has two different forms, the two different forms-- 00:12:58.810 --> 00:13:02.080 align:middle line:84% or multiple different forms, sometimes it's more than two-- 00:13:02.080 --> 00:13:03.610 align:middle line:84% the different forms of a morpheme 00:13:03.610 --> 00:13:06.610 align:middle line:84% that it takes under different morphological circumstances, 00:13:06.610 --> 00:13:08.680 align:middle line:84% those things are called allomorphs. 00:13:08.680 --> 00:13:14.590 align:middle line:84% So we say that, for example, the "d" and the "t" 00:13:14.590 --> 00:13:18.220 align:middle line:84% past tenses are two allomorphs of the past tense, 00:13:18.220 --> 00:13:20.680 align:middle line:84% or that "leap" and "leap" [pronounced like "lep"] are 00:13:20.680 --> 00:13:24.070 align:middle line:84% the elements of the verb "leap," the word that means "jump." 00:13:24.070 --> 00:13:25.780 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:13:25.780 --> 00:13:29.350 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: For example, when we [INAUDIBLE].. 00:13:29.350 --> 00:13:30.850 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, I'm just trying 00:13:30.850 --> 00:13:32.267 align:middle line:84% to call your attention to the fact 00:13:32.267 --> 00:13:33.760 align:middle line:84% that it's pronounced differently. 00:13:33.760 --> 00:13:36.250 align:middle line:84% Eventually, those brackets will mean something, 00:13:36.250 --> 00:13:37.990 align:middle line:84% but we haven't gotten far enough yet 00:13:37.990 --> 00:13:40.000 align:middle line:90% to get them to mean anything. 00:13:40.000 --> 00:13:42.940 align:middle line:84% So right now, all I'm doing is calling-- if I had said "leap, 00:13:42.940 --> 00:13:44.465 align:middle line:84% leaped," I would have spelled "leap" 00:13:44.465 --> 00:13:46.840 align:middle line:84% [pronounced like "lep"] the same way I'm spelling "leap." 00:13:46.840 --> 00:13:48.423 align:middle line:84% We would just pronounce it differently 00:13:48.423 --> 00:13:50.960 align:middle line:84% because English spelling is insane. 00:13:50.960 --> 00:13:53.590 align:middle line:84% And so I'm just putting the brackets there 00:13:53.590 --> 00:13:55.000 align:middle line:90% as a warning sign-- 00:13:55.000 --> 00:13:59.110 align:middle line:84% here's a place where the spelling is unreliable. 00:13:59.110 --> 00:13:59.733 align:middle line:90% Good question. 00:13:59.733 --> 00:14:01.900 align:middle line:84% Eventually, we'll figure out how to talk about that. 00:14:01.900 --> 00:14:03.016 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:14:03.016 --> 00:14:04.474 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 00:14:04.474 --> 00:14:08.213 align:middle line:90% 00:14:08.213 --> 00:14:09.130 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah. 00:14:09.130 --> 00:14:12.341 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So does that define [INAUDIBLE].. 00:14:12.341 --> 00:14:16.190 align:middle line:90% 00:14:16.190 --> 00:14:20.111 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, so right, so I called it "d" and "t" 00:14:20.111 --> 00:14:24.080 align:middle line:84% because "hummed," the past tense of "hum," although we spell it 00:14:24.080 --> 00:14:27.620 align:middle line:84% with an "e" before the "d," you say it, 00:14:27.620 --> 00:14:29.510 align:middle line:84% I think there's only one vowel in that word. 00:14:29.510 --> 00:14:31.100 align:middle line:90% It's "hummed," right? 00:14:31.100 --> 00:14:33.110 align:middle line:90% We're not saying "humm-ed." 00:14:33.110 --> 00:14:34.812 align:middle line:84% That's not the past tense of "hummed." 00:14:34.812 --> 00:14:35.762 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:14:35.762 --> 00:14:37.220 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, yeah, so I'm 00:14:37.220 --> 00:14:40.370 align:middle line:84% trying to just spell out sound, which is hard because we 00:14:40.370 --> 00:14:41.780 align:middle line:90% haven't done phonology yet. 00:14:41.780 --> 00:14:45.270 align:middle line:84% Yeah, but that's a really good question. 00:14:45.270 --> 00:14:48.230 align:middle line:84% This is one of many places where English spelling will get you 00:14:48.230 --> 00:14:51.380 align:middle line:84% in trouble because English is spelled 00:14:51.380 --> 00:14:54.540 align:middle line:84% according to rules that are designed to repel invaders, 00:14:54.540 --> 00:14:55.040 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:14:55.040 --> 00:14:57.720 align:middle line:90% 00:14:57.720 --> 00:14:58.370 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:14:58.370 --> 00:14:59.750 align:middle line:90% Any questions about any of this? 00:14:59.750 --> 00:15:02.210 align:middle line:84% These are really good questions you guys are asking. 00:15:02.210 --> 00:15:03.830 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:15:03.830 --> 00:15:04.330 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:15:04.330 --> 00:15:07.680 align:middle line:90% 00:15:07.680 --> 00:15:14.920 align:middle line:90% OK, yeah. 00:15:14.920 --> 00:15:21.380 align:middle line:84% So sometimes-- so we will get a chance to talk more-- in fact, 00:15:21.380 --> 00:15:24.340 align:middle line:84% we'll talk more very soon- about how exactly 00:15:24.340 --> 00:15:27.670 align:middle line:84% to talk about allomorphy, this property of morphemes 00:15:27.670 --> 00:15:31.030 align:middle line:84% of having more than one form, of having allomorphs. 00:15:31.030 --> 00:15:33.430 align:middle line:84% All we've said so far is, sometimes 00:15:33.430 --> 00:15:34.940 align:middle line:90% morphemes have allomorphs. 00:15:34.940 --> 00:15:36.790 align:middle line:84% So depending on what they combine with, 00:15:36.790 --> 00:15:39.980 align:middle line:90% they take different forms. 00:15:39.980 --> 00:15:42.460 align:middle line:84% There's often what's called a default allomorph. 00:15:42.460 --> 00:15:47.710 align:middle line:84% That is, there's a morpheme that is the basic one that 00:15:47.710 --> 00:15:49.267 align:middle line:90% shows up most of the time. 00:15:49.267 --> 00:15:51.100 align:middle line:84% And when we're making our special statements 00:15:51.100 --> 00:15:53.320 align:middle line:84% about other forms, well, they're going 00:15:53.320 --> 00:15:54.542 align:middle line:90% to be about the other forms. 00:15:54.542 --> 00:15:56.500 align:middle line:84% So there's going to be the form of the morpheme 00:15:56.500 --> 00:15:57.460 align:middle line:90% that you start off with. 00:15:57.460 --> 00:15:58.877 align:middle line:84% And then, you will do things to it 00:15:58.877 --> 00:16:01.610 align:middle line:90% to create the other allomorphs. 00:16:01.610 --> 00:16:06.220 align:middle line:84% So for example, the default assumption 00:16:06.220 --> 00:16:08.720 align:middle line:84% if I'm telling you about a verb, I've made up a verb. 00:16:08.720 --> 00:16:10.180 align:middle line:90% It's "fleep," "to fleep." 00:16:10.180 --> 00:16:14.950 align:middle line:84% It's a special move in soccer in which you do a headstand 00:16:14.950 --> 00:16:17.380 align:middle line:84% and kick with your feet over your head. 00:16:17.380 --> 00:16:18.280 align:middle line:90% I just made that up. 00:16:18.280 --> 00:16:20.140 align:middle line:84% The past tense of "fleep," you're 00:16:20.140 --> 00:16:21.970 align:middle line:84% going to assume that it's "fleeped." 00:16:21.970 --> 00:16:24.790 align:middle line:90% Yeah, it could be "flept." 00:16:24.790 --> 00:16:27.162 align:middle line:90% Yeah, it could be like leap. 00:16:27.162 --> 00:16:29.120 align:middle line:84% But you're going to assume that it's "fleeped." 00:16:29.120 --> 00:16:32.530 align:middle line:84% That is the default. You assume that morphemes 00:16:32.530 --> 00:16:36.250 align:middle line:84% don't have allomorphs other than the one, in this case, that 00:16:36.250 --> 00:16:39.960 align:middle line:84% shows up in ordinary present tense circumstances when 00:16:39.960 --> 00:16:40.980 align:middle line:90% they're not combining. 00:16:40.980 --> 00:16:43.620 align:middle line:90% OK? 00:16:43.620 --> 00:16:45.390 align:middle line:84% Is this any of this surprising or weird? 00:16:45.390 --> 00:16:45.947 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:16:45.947 --> 00:16:47.530 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Does that particular example 00:16:47.530 --> 00:16:48.905 align:middle line:84% have anything to do with the fact 00:16:48.905 --> 00:16:50.367 align:middle line:84% that it looks like the word "leap"? 00:16:50.367 --> 00:16:51.950 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I made it up that way 00:16:51.950 --> 00:16:54.765 align:middle line:90% to make you think that. 00:16:54.765 --> 00:16:57.140 align:middle line:84% So she asked, does that have anything to do with the fact 00:16:57.140 --> 00:16:58.850 align:middle line:84% that it looks like the verb "leap?" 00:16:58.850 --> 00:17:02.780 align:middle line:84% I guess the point I was making is we can't have a general rule 00:17:02.780 --> 00:17:05.780 align:middle line:84% that if you're making the past tense of a verb that ends 00:17:05.780 --> 00:17:09.740 align:middle line:84% in "-eap," that it's going to change to "-ep." 00:17:09.740 --> 00:17:12.710 align:middle line:84% When we're trying to figure out what's going on with "leap," 00:17:12.710 --> 00:17:14.030 align:middle line:90% that can't be what's going on. 00:17:14.030 --> 00:17:16.155 align:middle line:84% I guess I could have made that point in other ways. 00:17:16.155 --> 00:17:19.220 align:middle line:84% We have verbs like "heap," like to heap up sand, 00:17:19.220 --> 00:17:21.500 align:middle line:84% and the past tense of "heap" is not "hept," right? 00:17:21.500 --> 00:17:23.450 align:middle line:90% It's "heaped." 00:17:23.450 --> 00:17:25.460 align:middle line:84% But similarly, if I make up a new verb, 00:17:25.460 --> 00:17:27.710 align:middle line:84% you're not going to apply what happens 00:17:27.710 --> 00:17:30.380 align:middle line:90% in "leap" to the new verb. 00:17:30.380 --> 00:17:31.160 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:17:31.160 --> 00:17:33.320 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Are there any specific characteristics 00:17:33.320 --> 00:17:36.170 align:middle line:84% that would deter someone from going towards the default 00:17:36.170 --> 00:17:36.950 align:middle line:90% allomorph? 00:17:36.950 --> 00:17:39.680 align:middle line:84% Like if you made another made-up word, 00:17:39.680 --> 00:17:41.181 align:middle line:84% would there be any characteristics 00:17:41.181 --> 00:17:43.723 align:middle line:84% about that word that would have us moving towards [INAUDIBLE] 00:17:43.723 --> 00:17:44.735 align:middle line:90% the "t" at the end? 00:17:44.735 --> 00:17:45.860 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, I see. 00:17:45.860 --> 00:17:49.110 align:middle line:90% 00:17:49.110 --> 00:17:55.140 align:middle line:84% I don't think there's any way for me to induce you to do 00:17:55.140 --> 00:17:58.650 align:middle line:84% the "leap"/"lept" thing other than by telling you, oh, 00:17:58.650 --> 00:18:02.130 align:middle line:84% by the way, the past tense of "leap" is "lept." 00:18:02.130 --> 00:18:03.630 align:middle line:84% But it's interesting to think about. 00:18:03.630 --> 00:18:05.670 align:middle line:84% Sorry, Raquel, you were about to comment on that. 00:18:05.670 --> 00:18:07.128 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I was thinking like maybe 00:18:07.128 --> 00:18:09.960 align:middle line:84% if the word, you know it was in a specific discipline 00:18:09.960 --> 00:18:13.050 align:middle line:84% where the default one for that discipline 00:18:13.050 --> 00:18:15.210 align:middle line:84% is to do something that's viewed as a regular 00:18:15.210 --> 00:18:17.940 align:middle line:84% compared to the average thing-- like if you had an "ae" mean 00:18:17.940 --> 00:18:20.520 align:middle line:84% the plural, and you normally don't do that for all words, 00:18:20.520 --> 00:18:22.500 align:middle line:84% but you might do it for, I don't know, 00:18:22.500 --> 00:18:23.583 align:middle line:90% weird plants or something. 00:18:23.583 --> 00:18:24.500 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah. 00:18:24.500 --> 00:18:26.430 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You might default to weird plants. 00:18:26.430 --> 00:18:26.790 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: I see. 00:18:26.790 --> 00:18:27.520 align:middle line:90% I see what you mean. 00:18:27.520 --> 00:18:28.978 align:middle line:84% And there are languages, certainly, 00:18:28.978 --> 00:18:31.350 align:middle line:84% in which it might be easier to make a point like that. 00:18:31.350 --> 00:18:33.660 align:middle line:90% I guess the other thing to say-- 00:18:33.660 --> 00:18:36.660 align:middle line:84% the point you're raising brings this up-- 00:18:36.660 --> 00:18:39.240 align:middle line:84% people sometimes claim anyway that these kinds 00:18:39.240 --> 00:18:42.720 align:middle line:84% of irregular allomorphy, these things 00:18:42.720 --> 00:18:45.480 align:middle line:84% you just have to memorize about how things combine, 00:18:45.480 --> 00:18:49.620 align:middle line:84% they'll go away if you-- they'll sometimes 00:18:49.620 --> 00:18:52.120 align:middle line:84% go away if you combine a morpheme with something else. 00:18:52.120 --> 00:18:54.360 align:middle line:84% So the classic example, for some reason, 00:18:54.360 --> 00:19:03.274 align:middle line:84% the plural of "leaf," the things on trees, is "leaves." 00:19:03.274 --> 00:19:07.285 align:middle line:84% And here, I'll put it over here, too. 00:19:07.285 --> 00:19:11.710 align:middle line:90% 00:19:11.710 --> 00:19:14.890 align:middle line:84% But I've heard it claimed, anyway, 00:19:14.890 --> 00:19:17.590 align:middle line:84% that if you're talking about the athletic team, 00:19:17.590 --> 00:19:19.570 align:middle line:90% the Toronto Maple Leaf-- 00:19:19.570 --> 00:19:22.030 align:middle line:84% so the singular would be the "Toronto Maple Leaf"-- 00:19:22.030 --> 00:19:26.500 align:middle line:84% that the plural is the "Toronto Maple Leafs," and not the 00:19:26.500 --> 00:19:29.430 align:middle line:90% "Toronto Maple Leaves." 00:19:29.430 --> 00:19:30.640 align:middle line:90% I'm going to pause. 00:19:30.640 --> 00:19:34.005 align:middle line:84% I'm not enough of the sports fan to know whether this is true. 00:19:34.005 --> 00:19:35.520 align:middle line:90% So I'm getting a thumbs up. 00:19:35.520 --> 00:19:39.965 align:middle line:84% Anybody here from Toronto, or is anybody a Maple Leafs fan? 00:19:39.965 --> 00:19:41.340 align:middle line:84% Anyone know whether this is true? 00:19:41.340 --> 00:19:42.780 align:middle line:84% Presumably, is the kind of thing you could find out 00:19:42.780 --> 00:19:44.100 align:middle line:90% by looking at their website-- 00:19:44.100 --> 00:19:45.990 align:middle line:84% what does it say on their T-shirts? 00:19:45.990 --> 00:19:49.538 align:middle line:84% But this is a claim that I've heard, anyway. 00:19:49.538 --> 00:19:52.080 align:middle line:84% So there are some cases where this weird allomorphy goes away 00:19:52.080 --> 00:19:54.360 align:middle line:84% because you've made it part of this compound, 00:19:54.360 --> 00:19:55.930 align:middle line:84% or you've made it part of a name. 00:19:55.930 --> 00:19:58.838 align:middle line:90% So it isn't just about-- 00:19:58.838 --> 00:20:00.630 align:middle line:84% if we're talking about actual maple leaves, 00:20:00.630 --> 00:20:03.068 align:middle line:84% like leaves on a tree, then those 00:20:03.068 --> 00:20:05.610 align:middle line:84% are definitely "maple leaves," and something about them being 00:20:05.610 --> 00:20:08.076 align:middle line:90% the name of an athletic team. 00:20:08.076 --> 00:20:11.500 align:middle line:84% And somebody else had a hand that I ruthlessly ignored. 00:20:11.500 --> 00:20:12.000 align:middle line:90% Oh, Joseph? 00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:13.372 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:20:13.372 --> 00:20:14.580 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, they do? 00:20:14.580 --> 00:20:15.717 align:middle line:90% You checked. 00:20:15.717 --> 00:20:16.800 align:middle line:90% This is the kind of thing. 00:20:16.800 --> 00:20:19.290 align:middle line:84% [LAUGHS] I can tell sometimes that I 00:20:19.290 --> 00:20:22.460 align:middle line:84% was born in a different century, because there 00:20:22.460 --> 00:20:24.960 align:middle line:84% are all kinds of things where I raise interesting questions, 00:20:24.960 --> 00:20:26.700 align:middle line:84% and then in class, someone will be like, yes, 00:20:26.700 --> 00:20:27.670 align:middle line:90% and here is the answer. 00:20:27.670 --> 00:20:31.910 align:middle line:84% Like, oh, right, yeah, we have the ability to do that now. 00:20:31.910 --> 00:20:33.110 align:middle line:90% Anything else? 00:20:33.110 --> 00:20:36.022 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: What do you think the past tense of "slingshot" is? 00:20:36.022 --> 00:20:37.950 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Ooh! 00:20:37.950 --> 00:20:40.817 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So "slingshotted" and "slingshot" both feel wrong. 00:20:40.817 --> 00:20:41.650 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: OK. 00:20:41.650 --> 00:20:43.730 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:20:43.730 --> 00:20:46.100 align:middle line:90% "Slingshoots." 00:20:46.100 --> 00:20:49.010 align:middle line:84% So question was, what's the past tense of "slingshot"? 00:20:49.010 --> 00:20:52.433 align:middle line:84% Two possibilities-- "slingshotted" and "slingshot." 00:20:52.433 --> 00:20:53.850 align:middle line:84% And there was another possibility, 00:20:53.850 --> 00:20:56.660 align:middle line:84% which we will ignore for reasons of timing. 00:20:56.660 --> 00:21:01.220 align:middle line:84% Who thinks the past tense of "slingshot" is "slingshotted"? 00:21:01.220 --> 00:21:03.620 align:middle line:90% Who thinks it's "slingshot"? 00:21:03.620 --> 00:21:05.340 align:middle line:90% OK, interesting. 00:21:05.340 --> 00:21:07.220 align:middle line:90% There are some examples-- 00:21:07.220 --> 00:21:08.932 align:middle line:84% does anybody have another alternative? 00:21:08.932 --> 00:21:09.890 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: "Slingshote." 00:21:09.890 --> 00:21:10.610 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Slingshote"? 00:21:10.610 --> 00:21:11.270 align:middle line:90% No! 00:21:11.270 --> 00:21:13.303 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHS] Shame, for shame. 00:21:13.303 --> 00:21:14.720 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] "Slingshut." 00:21:14.720 --> 00:21:18.440 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Slung," "slung," "shoot"-- no. 00:21:18.440 --> 00:21:19.400 align:middle line:90% Also no. 00:21:19.400 --> 00:21:22.190 align:middle line:84% There are some examples of verbs or morphemes 00:21:22.190 --> 00:21:23.420 align:middle line:90% that if you combine them-- 00:21:23.420 --> 00:21:24.350 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:21:24.350 --> 00:21:26.360 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Sorry, if you combine them 00:21:26.360 --> 00:21:28.310 align:middle line:84% with other morphemes that no one knows, 00:21:28.310 --> 00:21:30.540 align:middle line:84% this is kind of like "slingshot." 00:21:30.540 --> 00:21:34.220 align:middle line:90% So take the verb "to stride." 00:21:34.220 --> 00:21:37.070 align:middle line:90% So the past tense is "strode." 00:21:37.070 --> 00:21:41.162 align:middle line:84% And then, the participle was, he has-- 00:21:41.162 --> 00:21:43.763 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] "stride"-- 00:21:43.763 --> 00:21:44.930 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Stridden." 00:21:44.930 --> 00:21:46.610 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:21:46.610 --> 00:21:48.410 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Strode," "strod." 00:21:48.410 --> 00:21:50.930 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHS] Who thinks it's-- 00:21:50.930 --> 00:21:52.040 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:21:52.040 --> 00:21:54.530 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Who thinks it's "stridden"? 00:21:54.530 --> 00:21:56.750 align:middle line:90% Who thinks it's "strode"? 00:21:56.750 --> 00:21:58.700 align:middle line:84% Who has something else they'd like it to be? 00:21:58.700 --> 00:21:58.970 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: "Strud." 00:21:58.970 --> 00:22:00.140 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Strud?" 00:22:00.140 --> 00:22:01.820 align:middle line:90% Any votes for "strud"? 00:22:01.820 --> 00:22:04.340 align:middle line:90% No, you're all alone, I'm sorry. 00:22:04.340 --> 00:22:06.800 align:middle line:84% So this is a classic example of a word where 00:22:06.800 --> 00:22:09.650 align:middle line:84% English speakers just are not sure what 00:22:09.650 --> 00:22:10.820 align:middle line:90% the participle of this is. 00:22:10.820 --> 00:22:11.450 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: "Smite" as well. 00:22:11.450 --> 00:22:12.530 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Sorry? 00:22:12.530 --> 00:22:14.655 align:middle line:84% "Smite" is another good example, yes. 00:22:14.655 --> 00:22:15.710 align:middle line:90% So that one-- 00:22:15.710 --> 00:22:17.758 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 00:22:17.758 --> 00:22:19.550 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: That one, yeah, so for me, 00:22:19.550 --> 00:22:23.990 align:middle line:84% so "smitten" has this other use, right? 00:22:23.990 --> 00:22:26.460 align:middle line:84% You can be "smitten" with someone-- 00:22:26.460 --> 00:22:28.520 align:middle line:90% which I think is interfering. 00:22:28.520 --> 00:22:34.358 align:middle line:84% Yep, OK, so lots of fun things to think about allomorphy. 00:22:34.358 --> 00:22:37.070 align:middle line:84% OK, so I'm going through all this partly-- 00:22:37.070 --> 00:22:40.640 align:middle line:84% so I want to go back to the stuff about morphemes combining 00:22:40.640 --> 00:22:45.320 align:middle line:84% with things and creating other things because so far, we 00:22:45.320 --> 00:22:48.530 align:middle line:84% have talked about various cases where morphemes combined 00:22:48.530 --> 00:22:50.038 align:middle line:84% with other morphemes, and we've also 00:22:50.038 --> 00:22:51.830 align:middle line:84% talked about cases where morphemes combined 00:22:51.830 --> 00:22:53.000 align:middle line:90% with more than one morpheme. 00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:55.340 align:middle line:84% And I kind want to talk about that a little bit 00:22:55.340 --> 00:22:57.140 align:middle line:84% carefully, because it's going to be 00:22:57.140 --> 00:22:59.390 align:middle line:84% something that's going to be useful 00:22:59.390 --> 00:23:01.212 align:middle line:90% as we go forward in the class. 00:23:01.212 --> 00:23:03.170 align:middle line:84% So let's talk about these particular morphemes. 00:23:03.170 --> 00:23:05.720 align:middle line:90% Think about the suffix "-ment." 00:23:05.720 --> 00:23:09.350 align:middle line:84% What does "-ment" attach to, and what does it create? 00:23:09.350 --> 00:23:11.990 align:middle line:84% So you can say things like "government" and "treatment." 00:23:11.990 --> 00:23:15.840 align:middle line:84% You cannot say things like "bodyment" or "powerment." 00:23:15.840 --> 00:23:19.690 align:middle line:90% What does "-ment" attach to? 00:23:19.690 --> 00:23:22.120 align:middle line:90% What are "govern" and "treat"? 00:23:22.120 --> 00:23:22.840 align:middle line:90% Verbs. 00:23:22.840 --> 00:23:24.010 align:middle line:90% Verbs, OK. 00:23:24.010 --> 00:23:29.000 align:middle line:84% So "-ment"-- erase some stuff here-- 00:23:29.000 --> 00:23:36.214 align:middle line:84% put "-ment," it attaches to a verb, and it creates what? 00:23:36.214 --> 00:23:36.960 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Noun. 00:23:36.960 --> 00:23:38.210 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: A noun, yeah. 00:23:38.210 --> 00:23:40.460 align:middle line:84% "Treatment" and "government" are both nouns. 00:23:40.460 --> 00:23:44.180 align:middle line:84% And I'll put that again over here. 00:23:44.180 --> 00:23:51.070 align:middle line:84% Do-do-do, "-ment" attaches to verbs and creates nouns. 00:23:51.070 --> 00:23:52.730 align:middle line:90% OK, cool. 00:23:52.730 --> 00:23:59.750 align:middle line:84% Now, how about the prefix "em-," as in "embody" and "empower." 00:23:59.750 --> 00:24:05.835 align:middle line:84% What does "em-" attach to, and what does it create? 00:24:05.835 --> 00:24:06.710 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:24:06.710 --> 00:24:08.127 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Attaches to nouns 00:24:08.127 --> 00:24:13.310 align:middle line:90% and makes them into verbs, aha. 00:24:13.310 --> 00:24:16.270 align:middle line:84% I'll just say that again over here. 00:24:16.270 --> 00:24:19.510 align:middle line:84% [LAUGHS] There's got to be a better way to do this. 00:24:19.510 --> 00:24:24.450 align:middle line:84% Attaches to nouns and makes them into verbs. 00:24:24.450 --> 00:24:25.110 align:middle line:90% OK, cool. 00:24:25.110 --> 00:24:27.630 align:middle line:90% 00:24:27.630 --> 00:24:33.240 align:middle line:84% All right, so we just said, we know why you can't say 00:24:33.240 --> 00:24:35.710 align:middle line:84% "bodiment" or "powerment." it's because "-ment" 00:24:35.710 --> 00:24:40.050 align:middle line:84% attaches to verbs, and "body" and "power" are not verbs. 00:24:40.050 --> 00:24:43.490 align:middle line:84% How come you can say "embodiment" and "empowerment"? 00:24:43.490 --> 00:24:45.575 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Because [INAUDIBLE]. 00:24:45.575 --> 00:24:48.200 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: All of you are saying the right thing, sort of 00:24:48.200 --> 00:24:48.950 align:middle line:90% in chorus. 00:24:48.950 --> 00:24:50.510 align:middle line:84% As the semester goes along, eventually, you'll 00:24:50.510 --> 00:24:52.010 align:middle line:84% start saying these things in unison, 00:24:52.010 --> 00:24:53.840 align:middle line:90% so it would be really cool. 00:24:53.840 --> 00:24:54.710 align:middle line:90% Maybe with harmony. 00:24:54.710 --> 00:24:58.190 align:middle line:84% So yeah, you can't attach "-ment" to "body" 00:24:58.190 --> 00:25:00.050 align:middle line:90% because "body" is a noun. 00:25:00.050 --> 00:25:03.270 align:middle line:84% But you can attach "-ment" to "embody." 00:25:03.270 --> 00:25:05.675 align:middle line:90% So "embody" is a verb. 00:25:05.675 --> 00:25:07.160 align:middle line:90% "Empower" is a verb. 00:25:07.160 --> 00:25:10.580 align:middle line:84% "Em-" attaches to the noun "body" or the noun "power" 00:25:10.580 --> 00:25:12.820 align:middle line:90% and makes it into a verb. 00:25:12.820 --> 00:25:16.450 align:middle line:84% And then, "-ment" attaches to the resulting verb and makes it 00:25:16.450 --> 00:25:19.270 align:middle line:90% into a noun again. 00:25:19.270 --> 00:25:21.140 align:middle line:84% So it's useful to think of these morphemes, 00:25:21.140 --> 00:25:23.200 align:middle line:84% so words like "embodiment" and "empowerment," 00:25:23.200 --> 00:25:27.550 align:middle line:84% not just as consisting of three morphemes-- although they do, 00:25:27.550 --> 00:25:30.430 align:middle line:84% a prefix, a stem, and then a suffix-- 00:25:30.430 --> 00:25:32.350 align:middle line:84% but as consisting in three morphemes 00:25:32.350 --> 00:25:35.770 align:middle line:84% that are assembled in a particular order. 00:25:35.770 --> 00:25:40.660 align:middle line:84% You first attach the prefix, and then you attach the suffix. 00:25:40.660 --> 00:25:43.040 align:middle line:84% People see why I'm saying it that way? 00:25:43.040 --> 00:25:45.020 align:middle line:90% That make sense? 00:25:45.020 --> 00:25:52.050 align:middle line:84% So here's a way of representing that fact, which 00:25:52.050 --> 00:25:54.340 align:middle line:84% is going to come in handy as we go forward. 00:25:54.340 --> 00:25:57.480 align:middle line:84% We're going to want to say, yeah, you start with "power," 00:25:57.480 --> 00:26:01.617 align:middle line:84% and you glom "power" together with this prefix. 00:26:01.617 --> 00:26:03.450 align:middle line:84% I've given it the label "aff," which is just 00:26:03.450 --> 00:26:05.580 align:middle line:90% supposed to stand for "affix." 00:26:05.580 --> 00:26:09.180 align:middle line:84% So the affix "em-," the prefix "em-", 00:26:09.180 --> 00:26:12.900 align:middle line:84% attaches to the noun "power" and creates a verb. 00:26:12.900 --> 00:26:17.310 align:middle line:84% That's what the lower left-hand side of that tree 00:26:17.310 --> 00:26:18.660 align:middle line:90% is meant to show you. 00:26:18.660 --> 00:26:20.140 align:middle line:90% Does that make sense? 00:26:20.140 --> 00:26:24.090 align:middle line:84% And then, that verb is combined with this other affix, "-ment," 00:26:24.090 --> 00:26:29.420 align:middle line:84% and the result is a noun, "empowerment." 00:26:29.420 --> 00:26:30.600 align:middle line:90% That make sense? 00:26:30.600 --> 00:26:33.390 align:middle line:84% So this tree is just a way of representing what I just said, 00:26:33.390 --> 00:26:35.390 align:middle line:84% which is it's useful to think of this 00:26:35.390 --> 00:26:39.320 align:middle line:84% as not just a word consisting of three morphemes, 00:26:39.320 --> 00:26:42.350 align:middle line:84% but a word consisting of three morphemes 00:26:42.350 --> 00:26:44.420 align:middle line:90% which are attached in pairs. 00:26:44.420 --> 00:26:46.310 align:middle line:84% That is, you attach "em-" to "power," 00:26:46.310 --> 00:26:48.650 align:middle line:84% and then you attach "-ment" to "empower." 00:26:48.650 --> 00:26:50.120 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:26:50.120 --> 00:26:52.610 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Are the placements of the affixes on this tree 00:26:52.610 --> 00:26:54.980 align:middle line:84% because of whether they're prefixes or suffixes? 00:26:54.980 --> 00:26:55.970 align:middle line:90% Yes, yeah. 00:26:55.970 --> 00:26:58.745 align:middle line:84% So you're asking, why did they put "em-" before "power," 00:26:58.745 --> 00:27:00.620 align:middle line:84% and why did they put "-ment" after "empower"? 00:27:00.620 --> 00:27:03.260 align:middle line:84% And yes, it's just whether they're prefixes or suffixes. 00:27:03.260 --> 00:27:05.542 align:middle line:84% That's all I was trying to do, right? 00:27:05.542 --> 00:27:07.250 align:middle line:84% So the tree is just a way of representing 00:27:07.250 --> 00:27:11.500 align:middle line:84% that kind of derivational history of this word. 00:27:11.500 --> 00:27:13.830 align:middle line:84% So what's the order of operations that you 00:27:13.830 --> 00:27:15.120 align:middle line:90% used to create this word? 00:27:15.120 --> 00:27:15.900 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:27:15.900 --> 00:27:18.442 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So they're ordered-- so it goes from the bottom up? 00:27:18.442 --> 00:27:20.940 align:middle line:84% Yes, that's a way to talk about it. 00:27:20.940 --> 00:27:23.680 align:middle line:90% Yeah, OK. 00:27:23.680 --> 00:27:24.410 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:27:24.410 --> 00:27:27.280 align:middle line:90% What [INAUDIBLE]? 00:27:27.280 --> 00:27:32.830 align:middle line:84% Oh, well, infixes would be where I would 00:27:32.830 --> 00:27:34.990 align:middle line:90% fail at what I'm trying to do. 00:27:34.990 --> 00:27:36.850 align:middle line:84% This was your point from just now. 00:27:36.850 --> 00:27:40.060 align:middle line:84% I'm trying to represent whether things are prefixes or suffixes 00:27:40.060 --> 00:27:41.740 align:middle line:90% by using the tree. 00:27:41.740 --> 00:27:44.470 align:middle line:84% If we were doing Tagalog, and I wanted 00:27:44.470 --> 00:27:48.670 align:middle line:84% to do the past tense of the verb "baba," which involves an infix 00:27:48.670 --> 00:27:54.550 align:middle line:84% "um" I'd probably put together, here's the affix, 00:27:54.550 --> 00:27:56.170 align:middle line:84% and this was a verb, and I'm going 00:27:56.170 --> 00:27:58.700 align:middle line:84% to put these two things together as a single thing. 00:27:58.700 --> 00:28:01.120 align:middle line:84% And then, yes, somewhere else, I would have to say, oh, 00:28:01.120 --> 00:28:02.980 align:middle line:90% by the way, this is an infix. 00:28:02.980 --> 00:28:05.260 align:middle line:84% So try not to take too seriously which 00:28:05.260 --> 00:28:07.570 align:middle line:84% things are to the left and right of which other things. 00:28:07.570 --> 00:28:09.940 align:middle line:84% What I'm really trying to get across with these trees 00:28:09.940 --> 00:28:13.175 align:middle line:84% is the order in which you are putting things together. 00:28:13.175 --> 00:28:14.800 align:middle line:84% The fact that some things are prefixes, 00:28:14.800 --> 00:28:17.560 align:middle line:84% and others are suffixes, and others are infixes, or tones, 00:28:17.560 --> 00:28:21.550 align:middle line:84% or whatever all else, that's somebody else's job for today, 00:28:21.550 --> 00:28:24.000 align:middle line:90% OK? 00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:26.880 align:middle line:90% Right, OK. 00:28:26.880 --> 00:28:29.370 align:middle line:84% There's a standard way of talking about trees like this. 00:28:29.370 --> 00:28:31.235 align:middle line:84% Trees like this are very popular. 00:28:31.235 --> 00:28:32.610 align:middle line:84% Try to get comfortable with them. 00:28:32.610 --> 00:28:34.680 align:middle line:84% We will spend lots of time looking at trees 00:28:34.680 --> 00:28:36.665 align:middle line:90% as the semester goes along. 00:28:36.665 --> 00:28:38.040 align:middle line:84% There's a standard way of talking 00:28:38.040 --> 00:28:41.550 align:middle line:84% about them, which involves feminine kinship terms. 00:28:41.550 --> 00:28:44.280 align:middle line:84% So we'll say that the sister of "em-" 00:28:44.280 --> 00:28:48.120 align:middle line:84% is a noun because those two things are next to each other 00:28:48.120 --> 00:28:48.810 align:middle line:90% on the tree. 00:28:48.810 --> 00:28:53.477 align:middle line:84% They are two daughters of the same thing, that verb node 00:28:53.477 --> 00:28:54.435 align:middle line:90% that's above them both. 00:28:54.435 --> 00:28:57.780 align:middle line:90% 00:28:57.780 --> 00:29:00.690 align:middle line:84% Another way to say it is that that verb is the mother of both 00:29:00.690 --> 00:29:03.330 align:middle line:90% "em-" and "power." 00:29:03.330 --> 00:29:05.910 align:middle line:84% I think that's as far as people go with the feminine kinship 00:29:05.910 --> 00:29:06.410 align:middle line:90% terms. 00:29:06.410 --> 00:29:08.940 align:middle line:84% People don't talk about "aunts," or whatever. 00:29:08.940 --> 00:29:12.528 align:middle line:84% So it's "sisters," and "daughters," and "mothers." 00:29:12.528 --> 00:29:14.070 align:middle line:84% Nobody even talks about grandmothers. 00:29:14.070 --> 00:29:16.170 align:middle line:90% It's nuclear families. 00:29:16.170 --> 00:29:18.342 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so there's just a terminology 00:29:18.342 --> 00:29:19.300 align:middle line:90% for talking about this. 00:29:19.300 --> 00:29:24.360 align:middle line:84% So "-ment" has a verb as its sister, and its mother is in N. 00:29:24.360 --> 00:29:29.820 align:middle line:84% When we say "-ment" has a verb as its sister and a noun as its 00:29:29.820 --> 00:29:32.280 align:middle line:84% mother, that's a way of saying things like what I have 00:29:32.280 --> 00:29:34.592 align:middle line:90% on the board here twice-- 00:29:34.592 --> 00:29:37.050 align:middle line:84% that "-ment" is something that takes a verb and converts it 00:29:37.050 --> 00:29:38.100 align:middle line:90% into a noun. 00:29:38.100 --> 00:29:40.920 align:middle line:84% That's how that kind of fact is represented in these trees. 00:29:40.920 --> 00:29:43.570 align:middle line:90% 00:29:43.570 --> 00:29:50.090 align:middle line:90% OK, now there will be times-- 00:29:50.090 --> 00:29:53.630 align:middle line:84% big surprise, this is like day three. 00:29:53.630 --> 00:29:56.060 align:middle line:84% I've been looking at comparatively simple cases. 00:29:56.060 --> 00:29:57.560 align:middle line:84% There are going to be examples where 00:29:57.560 --> 00:30:00.320 align:middle line:84% we'll want to distinguish multiple affixes that are maybe 00:30:00.320 --> 00:30:01.410 align:middle line:90% similar to each other. 00:30:01.410 --> 00:30:05.090 align:middle line:90% So think about the prefix "un-". 00:30:05.090 --> 00:30:07.610 align:middle line:84% The prefix "un-" shows up in words like "unwrap" 00:30:07.610 --> 00:30:12.680 align:middle line:84% and "untie," and also in words like "unlikely" and "unhappy." 00:30:12.680 --> 00:30:19.140 align:middle line:84% yeah these two "un-"s arguably mean different things, 00:30:19.140 --> 00:30:22.030 align:middle line:84% and they're attaching to different things. 00:30:22.030 --> 00:30:23.850 align:middle line:84% So somebody help me be less vague. 00:30:23.850 --> 00:30:25.170 align:middle line:90% What's the first "un-" doing? 00:30:25.170 --> 00:30:26.490 align:middle line:90% What does it attach to? 00:30:26.490 --> 00:30:29.193 align:middle line:90% 00:30:29.193 --> 00:30:29.860 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Verbs. 00:30:29.860 --> 00:30:30.430 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Verbs. 00:30:30.430 --> 00:30:32.560 align:middle line:84% OK, so there's an "un-" that attaches to verbs. 00:30:32.560 --> 00:30:34.720 align:middle line:84% What does the "un-" that attaches to verbs mean? 00:30:34.720 --> 00:30:38.360 align:middle line:90% 00:30:38.360 --> 00:30:40.410 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: An undoing of that verb. 00:30:40.410 --> 00:30:43.020 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, you undo-- wait, I just used-- 00:30:43.020 --> 00:30:44.630 align:middle line:90% yeah, you reverse. 00:30:44.630 --> 00:30:45.130 align:middle line:90% There we go. 00:30:45.130 --> 00:30:48.022 align:middle line:84% You take the result state of the verb, 00:30:48.022 --> 00:30:49.730 align:middle line:84% and you cause it to go back to the way it 00:30:49.730 --> 00:30:51.938 align:middle line:84% was before the verb was done, or something like that. 00:30:51.938 --> 00:30:53.810 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so if you unwrap something, 00:30:53.810 --> 00:30:55.490 align:middle line:84% you take something which is wrapped, 00:30:55.490 --> 00:30:58.070 align:middle line:84% and you cause it to not be wrapped anymore, 00:30:58.070 --> 00:30:59.220 align:middle line:90% or something like that. 00:30:59.220 --> 00:31:00.380 align:middle line:90% Same with "untie." 00:31:00.380 --> 00:31:06.950 align:middle line:84% So there's an "un-" that attaches to verbs and means 00:31:06.950 --> 00:31:09.620 align:middle line:90% something like "reverse." 00:31:09.620 --> 00:31:15.680 align:middle line:84% Or, to put it another way, there's an "un-" 00:31:15.680 --> 00:31:20.373 align:middle line:84% that attaches to verbs and means something like "reverse." 00:31:20.373 --> 00:31:22.040 align:middle line:84% That's actually putting it the same way, 00:31:22.040 --> 00:31:23.990 align:middle line:90% but in a different place, yeah? 00:31:23.990 --> 00:31:26.360 align:middle line:84% And then, there's another "un-" that attaches to what? 00:31:26.360 --> 00:31:29.530 align:middle line:90% What's the other "un-"? 00:31:29.530 --> 00:31:31.604 align:middle line:90% What does it attach to? 00:31:31.604 --> 00:31:32.479 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Adjectives. 00:31:32.479 --> 00:31:34.604 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Adjectives, and what does it mean? 00:31:34.604 --> 00:31:35.310 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: "Not." 00:31:35.310 --> 00:31:38.400 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, like "not," or something like that. 00:31:38.400 --> 00:31:44.400 align:middle line:90% 00:31:44.400 --> 00:31:48.330 align:middle line:84% I guess we get into debates about whether "unhappy" 00:31:48.330 --> 00:31:55.500 align:middle line:84% and "sad" mean the same thing, or "unlikely" 00:31:55.500 --> 00:31:58.172 align:middle line:84% and whatever the opposite of "likely" is. 00:31:58.172 --> 00:31:59.130 align:middle line:90% What am I putting here? 00:31:59.130 --> 00:32:05.340 align:middle line:90% Adjectives, "not." 00:32:05.340 --> 00:32:06.320 align:middle line:90% So two "un-"s. 00:32:06.320 --> 00:32:07.680 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:32:07.680 --> 00:32:11.250 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: If you a word like "unwrapping," is the "wrapping" 00:32:11.250 --> 00:32:14.340 align:middle line:84% a participle and "un-" a third "un-," or is it "unwrap," 00:32:14.340 --> 00:32:16.440 align:middle line:84% and it's "-ing" modifying the "unwrap"? 00:32:16.440 --> 00:32:17.320 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Really good question. 00:32:17.320 --> 00:32:18.420 align:middle line:84% What kind of tree should we draw? 00:32:18.420 --> 00:32:19.410 align:middle line:90% Should we draw a tree? 00:32:19.410 --> 00:32:21.720 align:middle line:84% So the question was for "unwrapping," 00:32:21.720 --> 00:32:24.960 align:middle line:84% are we going to attach "un-" to "wrap," giving a verb "unwrap," 00:32:24.960 --> 00:32:26.400 align:middle line:90% and add "-ing" to that? 00:32:26.400 --> 00:32:29.820 align:middle line:84% Or are we going to add "-ing" to "wrap," giving you "wrapping," 00:32:29.820 --> 00:32:32.815 align:middle line:84% and then add "un-" to that, a third "un-? 00:32:32.815 --> 00:32:33.690 align:middle line:90% What do people think? 00:32:33.690 --> 00:32:34.440 align:middle line:90% What should we do? 00:32:34.440 --> 00:32:37.120 align:middle line:90% 00:32:37.120 --> 00:32:39.620 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: It depends on what you're using the word as, yeah. 00:32:39.620 --> 00:32:40.698 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah? 00:32:40.698 --> 00:32:41.240 align:middle line:90% Do you have-- 00:32:41.240 --> 00:32:43.430 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: If you're using the word as the verb, 00:32:43.430 --> 00:32:47.720 align:middle line:84% "I am unwrapping this thing," then you would do the first, 00:32:47.720 --> 00:32:50.480 align:middle line:84% where you attach the "-ing" to "wrap" 00:32:50.480 --> 00:32:53.240 align:middle line:90% and you undo the wrapping. 00:32:53.240 --> 00:32:56.510 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, so well, we have an "un-"-- 00:32:56.510 --> 00:32:58.190 align:middle line:84% maybe this is a way to think about it. 00:32:58.190 --> 00:33:01.460 align:middle line:84% We have an "un-" that we can attach to verbs. 00:33:01.460 --> 00:33:03.020 align:middle line:84% And so in the case of "unwrapping," 00:33:03.020 --> 00:33:06.330 align:middle line:84% I guess we could hope that we can survive with just that 00:33:06.330 --> 00:33:09.110 align:middle line:84% "un-" until something forces us to do something else. 00:33:09.110 --> 00:33:10.310 align:middle line:90% But you have an idea, too. 00:33:10.310 --> 00:33:14.093 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] verb, like "unwrapping"? 00:33:14.093 --> 00:33:15.010 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah. 00:33:15.010 --> 00:33:16.640 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Then, then "unwrap" [INAUDIBLE] the "ing" part 00:33:16.640 --> 00:33:17.432 align:middle line:90% of it, [INAUDIBLE]? 00:33:17.432 --> 00:33:18.348 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah. 00:33:18.348 --> 00:33:18.848 align:middle line:90% 00:33:18.848 --> 00:33:21.778 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] something [INAUDIBLE] of the work? 00:33:21.778 --> 00:33:22.653 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes. 00:33:22.653 --> 00:33:28.460 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] to now, and [INAUDIBLE]?? 00:33:28.460 --> 00:33:30.460 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: So I guess there are two words. 00:33:30.460 --> 00:33:31.570 align:middle line:84% Unwrapping, this was your point, too. 00:33:31.570 --> 00:33:33.160 align:middle line:84% There are two words, "unwrapping," 00:33:33.160 --> 00:33:34.285 align:middle line:90% that we should think about. 00:33:34.285 --> 00:33:36.580 align:middle line:84% One is, "He is unwrapping the presents," 00:33:36.580 --> 00:33:39.973 align:middle line:84% and the other is, "Unwrapping presents is fun," 00:33:39.973 --> 00:33:41.890 align:middle line:84% where "Unwrapping presents is fun," hopefully, 00:33:41.890 --> 00:33:43.307 align:middle line:84% "unwrapping" is some kind of noun. 00:33:43.307 --> 00:33:47.600 align:middle line:84% It's what people sometimes call a gerund, where you convert 00:33:47.600 --> 00:33:50.830 align:middle line:84% a verb into a noun that means the process of doing the verb, 00:33:50.830 --> 00:33:52.420 align:middle line:90% or something like that. 00:33:52.420 --> 00:33:54.850 align:middle line:84% Maybe in both cases, we would hope, yeah, 00:33:54.850 --> 00:33:58.390 align:middle line:84% that you would first create the "un-" verb, 00:33:58.390 --> 00:34:01.150 align:middle line:84% and then you would add "-ing" to it, because "-ing" 00:34:01.150 --> 00:34:03.977 align:middle line:84% attaches to verbs and does other things with them sometimes. 00:34:03.977 --> 00:34:04.810 align:middle line:90% They're still verbs. 00:34:04.810 --> 00:34:07.052 align:middle line:90% Sometimes they're nouns now. 00:34:07.052 --> 00:34:09.010 align:middle line:84% That would be my first hope until somebody made 00:34:09.010 --> 00:34:10.659 align:middle line:90% me hope for something else. 00:34:10.659 --> 00:34:16.810 align:middle line:84% Maybe one way to say this is, these are cases where we know 00:34:16.810 --> 00:34:19.659 align:middle line:84% that there have to be two "un-"s, 00:34:19.659 --> 00:34:22.449 align:middle line:84% both because these two "un-"s seem to mean slightly different 00:34:22.449 --> 00:34:24.157 align:middle line:84% things, and because, well, they're just-- 00:34:24.157 --> 00:34:26.770 align:middle line:84% they are attaching to things of different kinds, 00:34:26.770 --> 00:34:27.880 align:middle line:90% verbs and adjectives. 00:34:27.880 --> 00:34:30.400 align:middle line:90% 00:34:30.400 --> 00:34:32.620 align:middle line:84% Your example, where we're adding "un-" 00:34:32.620 --> 00:34:36.760 align:middle line:84% to-- so suppose we were thinking about the "unwrapping is fun" 00:34:36.760 --> 00:34:38.810 align:middle line:90% case, the gerund case. 00:34:38.810 --> 00:34:41.440 align:middle line:84% If you wanted to add "un-" after you added "ing," 00:34:41.440 --> 00:34:44.315 align:middle line:84% after you made it into a noun, you'd be invoking an "un-" 00:34:44.315 --> 00:34:46.510 align:middle line:90% that attaches to nouns. 00:34:46.510 --> 00:34:49.600 align:middle line:84% And then the question, the next question people would ask you, 00:34:49.600 --> 00:34:52.330 align:middle line:84% would be, OK, so can you show me an example of "un" attaching 00:34:52.330 --> 00:34:55.960 align:middle line:84% to a noun where the noun isn't created from a verb with "ing," 00:34:55.960 --> 00:34:57.067 align:middle line:90% just a plain noun? 00:34:57.067 --> 00:34:58.900 align:middle line:84% That would be the strongest kind of evidence 00:34:58.900 --> 00:35:00.400 align:middle line:90% that we needed a third "un". 00:35:00.400 --> 00:35:03.300 align:middle line:90% Does that make any sense? 00:35:03.300 --> 00:35:04.620 align:middle line:90% Good question. 00:35:04.620 --> 00:35:06.910 align:middle line:90% Other questions? 00:35:06.910 --> 00:35:12.338 align:middle line:90% OK, all right, so we need-- 00:35:12.338 --> 00:35:14.380 align:middle line:84% what does it [INAUDIBLE] to, what does it create? 00:35:14.380 --> 00:35:16.705 align:middle line:90% OK, cool, so we need two "un-"s. 00:35:16.705 --> 00:35:18.580 align:middle line:84% Here's another affix to think about: "-able." 00:35:18.580 --> 00:35:20.950 align:middle line:84% "Drinkable," "breakable," "watchable," what does "-able" 00:35:20.950 --> 00:35:22.683 align:middle line:90% attach to? 00:35:22.683 --> 00:35:23.350 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Verbs. 00:35:23.350 --> 00:35:25.550 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Verbs, and what do you get? 00:35:25.550 --> 00:35:26.530 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Adjectives. 00:35:26.530 --> 00:35:27.947 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Adjectives, yeah. 00:35:27.947 --> 00:35:43.310 align:middle line:84% So "-able," "-able" converts verbs into adjectives, 00:35:43.310 --> 00:35:52.460 align:middle line:84% and it also converts verbs into adjectives. 00:35:52.460 --> 00:35:55.510 align:middle line:84% "Un-" doesn't convert the things that attaches to at all so far, 00:35:55.510 --> 00:35:56.010 align:middle line:90% yeah? 00:35:56.010 --> 00:35:58.220 align:middle line:84% So "un-"-- we'll go back to "un-." 00:35:58.220 --> 00:35:59.870 align:middle line:90% Sure, we will-- there we go. 00:35:59.870 --> 00:36:02.090 align:middle line:84% "Un-" attaches to verbs, and what you get is a verb. 00:36:02.090 --> 00:36:03.740 align:middle line:84% "Un-" attaches to adjectives, and what you get is 00:36:03.740 --> 00:36:04.350 align:middle line:90% an adjective. 00:36:04.350 --> 00:36:05.930 align:middle line:84% So it changes the meaning, but it doesn't change 00:36:05.930 --> 00:36:07.013 align:middle line:90% the category of the word. 00:36:07.013 --> 00:36:08.180 align:middle line:90% The thing is still the same. 00:36:08.180 --> 00:36:10.030 align:middle line:90% Yeah, OK. 00:36:10.030 --> 00:36:13.820 align:middle line:90% 00:36:13.820 --> 00:36:18.260 align:middle line:84% OK so we have "un-"s, one that attaches to verbs and makes new 00:36:18.260 --> 00:36:21.530 align:middle line:84% verbs-- yes, thank you, I just said that-- 00:36:21.530 --> 00:36:24.260 align:middle line:84% and then another one that attaches to adjectives 00:36:24.260 --> 00:36:26.680 align:middle line:90% and makes new adjectives. 00:36:26.680 --> 00:36:29.180 align:middle line:84% And then we have an "-able" that attaches to verbs and makes 00:36:29.180 --> 00:36:31.720 align:middle line:90% adjectives, yeah? 00:36:31.720 --> 00:36:33.050 align:middle line:90% OK? 00:36:33.050 --> 00:36:38.210 align:middle line:84% So now let's think about a case where we're adding "un-" 00:36:38.210 --> 00:36:42.710 align:middle line:84% and also "-able," a word like "unlockable." 00:36:42.710 --> 00:36:45.470 align:middle line:84% What should that be able to mean? 00:36:45.470 --> 00:36:46.820 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 00:36:46.820 --> 00:36:49.350 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes, it's the answer. 00:36:49.350 --> 00:36:53.770 align:middle line:84% So if we're going to start with "lock"-- 00:36:53.770 --> 00:36:55.580 align:middle line:90% let me find an eraser. 00:36:55.580 --> 00:36:59.760 align:middle line:90% 00:36:59.760 --> 00:37:03.036 align:middle line:84% So we'll do this over here first. 00:37:03.036 --> 00:37:07.470 align:middle line:84% If we're going to start with "lock," what shall 00:37:07.470 --> 00:37:09.855 align:middle line:90% we add first? 00:37:09.855 --> 00:37:11.160 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: "Un-." 00:37:11.160 --> 00:37:14.010 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Un-," let's say, OK, so "lock" is a verb. 00:37:14.010 --> 00:37:15.150 align:middle line:90% We'll add "un-." 00:37:15.150 --> 00:37:17.468 align:middle line:90% We'll get-- so here's an affix. 00:37:17.468 --> 00:37:20.010 align:middle line:84% Put these two things together, what will the result of adding 00:37:20.010 --> 00:37:21.512 align:middle line:90% "un-" to "lock" be? 00:37:21.512 --> 00:37:22.220 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: A verb. 00:37:22.220 --> 00:37:25.470 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Another verb, yeah. 00:37:25.470 --> 00:37:29.400 align:middle line:84% And then we'll take "-able," which we know attaches to verbs 00:37:29.400 --> 00:37:32.950 align:middle line:90% and creates adjectives. 00:37:32.950 --> 00:37:36.310 align:middle line:90% Yeah, so we'll take that affix. 00:37:36.310 --> 00:37:37.480 align:middle line:90% We'll attach another verb. 00:37:37.480 --> 00:37:43.370 align:middle line:84% And what we'll get will be an adjective. 00:37:43.370 --> 00:37:46.100 align:middle line:84% So we'll have an adjective which we created by first putting 00:37:46.100 --> 00:37:50.550 align:middle line:84% "un-" on "lock," and then putting "-able" on "unlock." 00:37:50.550 --> 00:37:54.690 align:middle line:84% I'm going to draw the other option over here. 00:37:54.690 --> 00:37:57.920 align:middle line:90% And where am I going to put it? 00:37:57.920 --> 00:37:59.870 align:middle line:90% Here. 00:37:59.870 --> 00:38:03.880 align:middle line:84% So over there, we attached "un-" first, so this time, 00:38:03.880 --> 00:38:06.160 align:middle line:84% we're going to take the verb "lock", 00:38:06.160 --> 00:38:07.780 align:middle line:84% and we're going to add "-able" to it. 00:38:07.780 --> 00:38:11.360 align:middle line:90% 00:38:11.360 --> 00:38:14.810 align:middle line:84% What's the result going to be when we add the affix "-able" 00:38:14.810 --> 00:38:17.400 align:middle line:90% to the verb "lock"? 00:38:17.400 --> 00:38:19.950 align:middle line:90% An adjective. 00:38:19.950 --> 00:38:24.357 align:middle line:84% And we're going to add the affix "un-" to that adjective, 00:38:24.357 --> 00:38:26.190 align:middle line:84% and the result of that will be an adjective. 00:38:26.190 --> 00:38:30.250 align:middle line:84% Both of these will be pronounced "unlockable." 00:38:30.250 --> 00:38:32.650 align:middle line:90% But what will they mean? 00:38:32.650 --> 00:38:35.844 align:middle line:90% What will that one mean? 00:38:35.844 --> 00:38:37.558 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Not able to be locked. 00:38:37.558 --> 00:38:39.100 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: It cannot be locked. 00:38:39.100 --> 00:38:41.440 align:middle line:90% Yeah, so this is a broken lock. 00:38:41.440 --> 00:38:44.070 align:middle line:90% Yeah, it is unlockable. 00:38:44.070 --> 00:38:47.730 align:middle line:84% Yeah, right, because when you add "-able" to "lock," 00:38:47.730 --> 00:38:50.880 align:middle line:90% you get an adjective-- 00:38:50.880 --> 00:38:52.523 align:middle line:90% possible to lock this thing. 00:38:52.523 --> 00:38:53.940 align:middle line:84% And then, when you add "un" to it, 00:38:53.940 --> 00:38:57.050 align:middle line:84% you say not possible to lock this thing. 00:38:57.050 --> 00:38:59.170 align:middle line:84% How about that one, that "unlockable" over there, 00:38:59.170 --> 00:39:01.207 align:middle line:84% the one where we first added "un-" to "lock" 00:39:01.207 --> 00:39:02.290 align:middle line:90% and then we added "-able?" 00:39:02.290 --> 00:39:03.873 align:middle line:90% What does this one mean? 00:39:03.873 --> 00:39:05.040 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: "Can be unlocked." 00:39:05.040 --> 00:39:07.300 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Can be unlocked." 00:39:07.300 --> 00:39:11.730 align:middle line:84% This is not a broken lock, a lock that's working properly. 00:39:11.730 --> 00:39:14.820 align:middle line:84% Yeah, and that's our intuition about the word "unlockable." 00:39:14.820 --> 00:39:17.510 align:middle line:90% It is ambiguous. 00:39:17.510 --> 00:39:20.100 align:middle line:84% If you say, this door is unlockable, 00:39:20.100 --> 00:39:26.600 align:middle line:84% because I have the key, or this door is unlockable, 00:39:26.600 --> 00:39:29.130 align:middle line:90% somebody calls a locksmith. 00:39:29.130 --> 00:39:30.060 align:middle line:90% Does that sound right? 00:39:30.060 --> 00:39:32.410 align:middle line:84% It can be either of those things. 00:39:32.410 --> 00:39:32.910 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:39:32.910 --> 00:39:35.215 align:middle line:90% 00:39:35.215 --> 00:39:38.980 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I [INAUDIBLE],, I don't think 00:39:38.980 --> 00:39:44.420 align:middle line:84% there is a particular [INAUDIBLE] on [INAUDIBLE].. 00:39:44.420 --> 00:39:46.510 align:middle line:84% If we looked at "unsinkable," for instance-- 00:39:46.510 --> 00:39:47.427 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah? 00:39:47.427 --> 00:39:50.330 align:middle line:90% 00:39:50.330 --> 00:39:55.730 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I don't tend to hear "unsinkable" as meaning "able 00:39:55.730 --> 00:39:56.910 align:middle line:90% to be unsunk." 00:39:56.910 --> 00:39:59.740 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Right, do you think 00:39:59.740 --> 00:40:03.678 align:middle line:84% do you think there is a verb "unsink"? 00:40:03.678 --> 00:40:04.890 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: I don't know. 00:40:04.890 --> 00:40:06.640 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, so actually, you're 00:40:06.640 --> 00:40:07.485 align:middle line:90% raising-- oh, yes. 00:40:07.485 --> 00:40:09.652 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Does that have to do with the transitivity 00:40:09.652 --> 00:40:11.110 align:middle line:90% of the verb? 00:40:11.110 --> 00:40:13.820 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Well, you can sink a ship, 00:40:13.820 --> 00:40:15.770 align:middle line:90% so the verb's transitive. 00:40:15.770 --> 00:40:20.430 align:middle line:84% And the ship can also sink, so it can be intransitive. 00:40:20.430 --> 00:40:22.920 align:middle line:84% You can lock a door, and a door can lock. 00:40:22.920 --> 00:40:24.420 align:middle line:84% So we have a bunch of verbs that can 00:40:24.420 --> 00:40:26.920 align:middle line:84% go back and forth between being transitive and intransitive. 00:40:26.920 --> 00:40:28.960 align:middle line:84% And we'll talk more about transitivity later. 00:40:28.960 --> 00:40:30.660 align:middle line:84% But for people who are wondering what the heck we're 00:40:30.660 --> 00:40:32.790 align:middle line:84% talking about, verbs are said to be transitive 00:40:32.790 --> 00:40:34.630 align:middle line:84% if they have both a subject and an object. 00:40:34.630 --> 00:40:36.660 align:middle line:84% So if you sink a ship, "I sank the ship," 00:40:36.660 --> 00:40:38.640 align:middle line:90% then the verb is transitive. 00:40:38.640 --> 00:40:41.260 align:middle line:84% If you say, "the ship sank," then there's only a subject. 00:40:41.260 --> 00:40:42.010 align:middle line:90% There's no object. 00:40:42.010 --> 00:40:43.290 align:middle line:90% So the verb is intransitive. 00:40:43.290 --> 00:40:45.780 align:middle line:84% English has a lot of verbs that can be either. 00:40:45.780 --> 00:40:48.390 align:middle line:84% And a lot of the groups that are up here can be either. 00:40:48.390 --> 00:40:51.330 align:middle line:84% Your question raises a really good point, though, which is, 00:40:51.330 --> 00:40:53.820 align:middle line:84% I just casually said, you can add "un-" to verbs, 00:40:53.820 --> 00:40:56.280 align:middle line:84% and it means undo the effect of the verb-- 00:40:56.280 --> 00:40:59.850 align:middle line:84% yeah, look, "unwrap," "untie," yeah. 00:40:59.850 --> 00:41:03.270 align:middle line:90% But you can't unsink a ship. 00:41:03.270 --> 00:41:07.980 align:middle line:84% Even If you go down with divers, and find the ship, 00:41:07.980 --> 00:41:10.140 align:middle line:84% and bring it back to the surface, 00:41:10.140 --> 00:41:13.890 align:middle line:84% you're still not unsinking the ship, I don't think. 00:41:13.890 --> 00:41:17.010 align:middle line:84% It doesn't matter how good you are at this. 00:41:17.010 --> 00:41:20.070 align:middle line:84% So we have to say some other things about that "un-." 00:41:20.070 --> 00:41:21.870 align:middle line:90% You're raising a good point. 00:41:21.870 --> 00:41:25.470 align:middle line:84% There are some verbs that cannot be reversed, and "sink" 00:41:25.470 --> 00:41:26.760 align:middle line:90% maybe is one of them. 00:41:26.760 --> 00:41:29.580 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE], Joseph, yeah? 00:41:29.580 --> 00:41:32.250 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: This might just be me, but I feel like 00:41:32.250 --> 00:41:36.360 align:middle line:84% because the word is ambiguous, at least in the context of that 00:41:36.360 --> 00:41:41.100 align:middle line:84% word, I feel like in my mind, my brain has decided that 00:41:41.100 --> 00:41:46.130 align:middle line:84% "unlockable" means something that generally this one, 00:41:46.130 --> 00:41:48.072 align:middle line:90% like it cannot [INAUDIBLE]. 00:41:48.072 --> 00:41:49.768 align:middle line:90% 00:41:49.768 --> 00:41:51.060 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: The other one? 00:41:51.060 --> 00:41:53.100 align:middle line:90% Yeah, yeah. 00:41:53.100 --> 00:41:55.050 align:middle line:84% If your brain is like my brain, then it really 00:41:55.050 --> 00:41:56.460 align:middle line:84% likes that one, the one you can't see. 00:41:56.460 --> 00:41:58.210 align:middle line:84% It's not your fault. Yeah, it's over there 00:41:58.210 --> 00:42:00.240 align:middle line:90% under the slide, yep. 00:42:00.240 --> 00:42:02.410 align:middle line:90% Yep, yep. 00:42:02.410 --> 00:42:05.145 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: It's like something that can be unlocked, yeah. 00:42:05.145 --> 00:42:07.020 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, yeah, it's unlockable. 00:42:07.020 --> 00:42:08.010 align:middle line:90% The door is unlockable. 00:42:08.010 --> 00:42:09.420 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:42:09.420 --> 00:42:10.860 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: It's unlockable? 00:42:10.860 --> 00:42:11.770 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yep. 00:42:11.770 --> 00:42:13.500 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So you can say the lock is broken. 00:42:13.500 --> 00:42:15.000 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, yeah, I might 00:42:15.000 --> 00:42:16.255 align:middle line:90% be more likely to say that. 00:42:16.255 --> 00:42:17.130 align:middle line:90% I think you're right. 00:42:17.130 --> 00:42:18.300 align:middle line:90% I have that feeling too. 00:42:18.300 --> 00:42:21.665 align:middle line:84% And actually, I cheated a second ago when I said "unlockable." 00:42:21.665 --> 00:42:22.290 align:middle line:90% It's ambiguous. 00:42:22.290 --> 00:42:23.560 align:middle line:90% You can say either one. 00:42:23.560 --> 00:42:28.290 align:middle line:84% But for me, at least, if I want to mean that one-- 00:42:28.290 --> 00:42:32.560 align:middle line:84% the one that means it's broken, you can't lock it-- 00:42:32.560 --> 00:42:35.550 align:middle line:84% I kind have to say it's "un-lockable," 00:42:35.550 --> 00:42:38.160 align:middle line:84% like as opposed to this one, which you say, 00:42:38.160 --> 00:42:39.870 align:middle line:90% it's "unlockable." 00:42:39.870 --> 00:42:42.690 align:middle line:84% I kind have to put another stress on "un" or something 00:42:42.690 --> 00:42:43.350 align:middle line:90% like that. 00:42:43.350 --> 00:42:44.125 align:middle line:90% That's my feeling. 00:42:44.125 --> 00:42:45.750 align:middle line:84% But maybe some of you are looking at me 00:42:45.750 --> 00:42:48.600 align:middle line:84% as though I've grown two heads, which is a kind of look 00:42:48.600 --> 00:42:51.300 align:middle line:84% that I get a lot just kind of walking around so, you know, 00:42:51.300 --> 00:42:52.290 align:middle line:90% I'm used to it. 00:42:52.290 --> 00:42:53.790 align:middle line:84% Does anybody else have that feeling? 00:42:53.790 --> 00:42:55.350 align:middle line:84% I don't think I pronounce these two 00:42:55.350 --> 00:42:59.560 align:middle line:84% verbs the same way, these two adjectives in the same way. 00:42:59.560 --> 00:43:00.420 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:43:00.420 --> 00:43:04.800 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think [INAUDIBLE] put a stress 00:43:04.800 --> 00:43:06.360 align:middle line:90% in the word [INAUDIBLE]. 00:43:06.360 --> 00:43:07.170 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Yeah. 00:43:07.170 --> 00:43:10.285 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] not [INAUDIBLE] 00:43:10.285 --> 00:43:11.160 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yep. 00:43:11.160 --> 00:43:12.072 align:middle line:90% 00:43:12.072 --> 00:43:13.900 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:43:13.900 --> 00:43:17.470 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes, now this is 24.900. 00:43:17.470 --> 00:43:19.480 align:middle line:84% We will surely not get to the bottom of this. 00:43:19.480 --> 00:43:22.210 align:middle line:84% But this is a really interesting sort of question. 00:43:22.210 --> 00:43:24.010 align:middle line:84% And maybe one of the things we're learning 00:43:24.010 --> 00:43:26.260 align:middle line:84% is that if we want to have a full understanding of how 00:43:26.260 --> 00:43:28.330 align:middle line:84% stress works, we need to be willing to think 00:43:28.330 --> 00:43:29.870 align:middle line:90% about these structures. 00:43:29.870 --> 00:43:32.620 align:middle line:84% These structures are apparently informing our intuitions 00:43:32.620 --> 00:43:34.592 align:middle line:84% about where stress goes and how it's treated, 00:43:34.592 --> 00:43:35.800 align:middle line:90% which is kind of interesting. 00:43:35.800 --> 00:43:38.050 align:middle line:84% You had a hand up a while ago, and I never got to you. 00:43:38.050 --> 00:43:39.520 align:middle line:90% I'm sorry. 00:43:39.520 --> 00:43:42.040 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: In the sentence, you can't "unsink a ship," 00:43:42.040 --> 00:43:42.410 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah? 00:43:42.410 --> 00:43:43.930 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Sink does sound correct. 00:43:43.930 --> 00:43:44.290 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh. 00:43:44.290 --> 00:43:45.850 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: That's the previous-- 00:43:45.850 --> 00:43:49.070 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: You can't unsink a ship? 00:43:49.070 --> 00:43:49.765 align:middle line:90% Oh, boy. 00:43:49.765 --> 00:43:52.720 align:middle line:90% 00:43:52.720 --> 00:43:55.030 align:middle line:84% In general, you can't unsink a ship, 00:43:55.030 --> 00:43:58.870 align:middle line:84% but I think this ship might be unsinkable. 00:43:58.870 --> 00:44:00.160 align:middle line:90% Maybe, I don't know. 00:44:00.160 --> 00:44:03.250 align:middle line:90% 00:44:03.250 --> 00:44:06.650 align:middle line:90% You can't you unburn a letter. 00:44:06.650 --> 00:44:09.450 align:middle line:90% You can't unbreak a teapot. 00:44:09.450 --> 00:44:09.950 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:44:09.950 --> 00:44:15.612 align:middle line:84% [LAUGHS] So maybe I was too fast to say there are 00:44:15.612 --> 00:44:16.820 align:middle line:90% verbs that can't be reversed. 00:44:16.820 --> 00:44:18.980 align:middle line:84% And to the extent that you can reverse them, 00:44:18.980 --> 00:44:22.230 align:middle line:84% I think you then get both of these adjectives. 00:44:22.230 --> 00:44:22.730 align:middle line:90% So-- 00:44:22.730 --> 00:44:24.313 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] certain affects. 00:44:24.313 --> 00:44:26.090 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:44:26.090 --> 00:44:27.470 align:middle line:90% Whoo, these are deep waters. 00:44:27.470 --> 00:44:29.360 align:middle line:84% Fortunately for me, other people are raising their hands. 00:44:29.360 --> 00:44:30.380 align:middle line:84% Let me see what they have to say. 00:44:30.380 --> 00:44:31.040 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:44:31.040 --> 00:44:33.747 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think it's like you're 00:44:33.747 --> 00:44:35.330 align:middle line:84% pointing out in the sentence, the fact 00:44:35.330 --> 00:44:36.940 align:middle line:90% that it's not the same. 00:44:36.940 --> 00:44:37.550 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, that's true. 00:44:37.550 --> 00:44:39.425 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You're pointing out in the sentence 00:44:39.425 --> 00:44:41.400 align:middle line:84% like, almost like that sounds ridiculous. 00:44:41.400 --> 00:44:42.600 align:middle line:90% You can't unsink a ship. 00:44:42.600 --> 00:44:43.250 align:middle line:90% That's not going to work. 00:44:43.250 --> 00:44:44.667 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:44:44.667 --> 00:44:46.730 align:middle line:90% 00:44:46.730 --> 00:44:49.130 align:middle line:84% "We have this crazy scientist at MIT. 00:44:49.130 --> 00:44:52.070 align:middle line:84% He's doing this weird diving research." 00:44:52.070 --> 00:44:54.560 align:middle line:84% He's spending all his time trying to unsink ships. 00:44:54.560 --> 00:44:56.208 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:44:56.208 --> 00:44:56.750 align:middle line:90% I don't know. 00:44:56.750 --> 00:44:58.867 align:middle line:84% Maybe it's just a matter of the number of times 00:44:58.867 --> 00:45:00.200 align:middle line:90% you say it, so that eventually-- 00:45:00.200 --> 00:45:00.770 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:45:00.770 --> 00:45:04.460 align:middle line:84% It's just unlocking a door, this is the kind of thing that 00:45:04.460 --> 00:45:07.190 align:middle line:84% happens all the time, whereas unwrapping a present, 00:45:07.190 --> 00:45:10.020 align:middle line:84% whereas unsinking a ship, people generally don't. 00:45:10.020 --> 00:45:11.690 align:middle line:84% Yeah, maybe that's all that's happening. 00:45:11.690 --> 00:45:13.143 align:middle line:90% Did you have a question? 00:45:13.143 --> 00:45:14.810 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Well, it was I was essentially 00:45:14.810 --> 00:45:17.270 align:middle line:84% going to say that it might have to do with whether or not 00:45:17.270 --> 00:45:19.130 align:middle line:90% the reversion is temporary. 00:45:19.130 --> 00:45:21.470 align:middle line:84% If the reversion of the verb is a permanent thing, 00:45:21.470 --> 00:45:23.887 align:middle line:84% and you won't be able to restore it to the previous state, 00:45:23.887 --> 00:45:25.130 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE]? 00:45:25.130 --> 00:45:29.630 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Ah, so if you unlock a door, 00:45:29.630 --> 00:45:31.250 align:middle line:90% you can lock it again. 00:45:31.250 --> 00:45:33.770 align:middle line:84% Of course, if you can unsink ships, 00:45:33.770 --> 00:45:35.624 align:middle line:84% you can probably sink them again, right? 00:45:35.624 --> 00:45:37.200 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:45:37.200 --> 00:45:39.200 align:middle line:84% This is probably going to get expensive and wet. 00:45:39.200 --> 00:45:42.617 align:middle line:84% But yeah, so it's presumably something you can do. 00:45:42.617 --> 00:45:43.117 align:middle line:90% Raquel? 00:45:43.117 --> 00:45:44.367 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: I have two thoughts. 00:45:44.367 --> 00:45:46.910 align:middle line:84% And the first thought is that "unlock" is an actual word, 00:45:46.910 --> 00:45:49.110 align:middle line:84% but I don't think "unsink" is an actual word. 00:45:49.110 --> 00:45:53.570 align:middle line:84% So maybe we think of "unlock" as its own specific word 00:45:53.570 --> 00:45:55.355 align:middle line:90% that we can add "able" to. 00:45:55.355 --> 00:45:57.930 align:middle line:84% And then, the second thought is that "unbearable", 00:45:57.930 --> 00:46:00.760 align:middle line:84% that breaks this, because we don't think "unbear." 00:46:00.760 --> 00:46:02.635 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, that's a very-- that's-- 00:46:02.635 --> 00:46:04.160 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You can't unbear a bear. 00:46:04.160 --> 00:46:04.302 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHS] 00:46:04.302 --> 00:46:05.469 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Well, yeah. 00:46:05.469 --> 00:46:07.940 align:middle line:84% So but OK, those are both really interesting thoughts. 00:46:07.940 --> 00:46:09.680 align:middle line:84% I mean, the first thought is what 00:46:09.680 --> 00:46:12.410 align:middle line:84% we're arguing about, is whether "unsink" is a word or not. 00:46:12.410 --> 00:46:15.840 align:middle line:84% And I guess the answer that's emerging is, sort of. 00:46:15.840 --> 00:46:17.820 align:middle line:84% It's just not something you do all the time. 00:46:17.820 --> 00:46:21.050 align:middle line:84% And so our intuitions about it are kind of fuzzy. 00:46:21.050 --> 00:46:25.010 align:middle line:84% "Unbearable" is a really nice example. 00:46:25.010 --> 00:46:27.950 align:middle line:84% Basically, what that's telling us is that-- 00:46:27.950 --> 00:46:30.340 align:middle line:90% what the heck is it telling us? 00:46:30.340 --> 00:46:31.340 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: It's unbeared? 00:46:31.340 --> 00:46:33.980 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: So "bearable," right, the adjective 00:46:33.980 --> 00:46:41.270 align:middle line:84% "bearable," it has a couple of meanings. 00:46:41.270 --> 00:46:46.640 align:middle line:84% The meaning that you have in mind, the meaning that you 00:46:46.640 --> 00:46:49.495 align:middle line:84% have in mind-- let me remind my computer not to do that, sorry. 00:46:49.495 --> 00:46:50.870 align:middle line:84% The meaning that you have in mind 00:46:50.870 --> 00:46:55.160 align:middle line:84% is one where "bearable," it doesn't just mean 00:46:55.160 --> 00:46:57.260 align:middle line:90% "can be carried," right? 00:46:57.260 --> 00:47:01.430 align:middle line:84% It means something more emotional than that. 00:47:01.430 --> 00:47:06.380 align:middle line:84% And no, but it can have that kind of emotional meaning 00:47:06.380 --> 00:47:09.650 align:middle line:90% when you're bearing-- you know. 00:47:09.650 --> 00:47:11.990 align:middle line:90% Yeah, what? 00:47:11.990 --> 00:47:18.110 align:middle line:84% "She bore the loss of her stock holdings well." 00:47:18.110 --> 00:47:19.850 align:middle line:90% Yeah, so I don't know. 00:47:19.850 --> 00:47:21.650 align:middle line:90% So maybe, OK. 00:47:21.650 --> 00:47:24.650 align:middle line:84% So I guess what we're learning is that although you cannot 00:47:24.650 --> 00:47:27.050 align:middle line:90% unbear something-- 00:47:27.050 --> 00:47:30.860 align:middle line:84% maybe because there's no sense in which you can reverse 00:47:30.860 --> 00:47:33.560 align:middle line:90% the bearing of something-- 00:47:33.560 --> 00:47:35.177 align:middle line:84% there is an adjective "bearable," 00:47:35.177 --> 00:47:37.260 align:middle line:84% and you can add the other "un-" to that, the "un-" 00:47:37.260 --> 00:47:40.100 align:middle line:84% that attaches to "bearable," to adjectives, 00:47:40.100 --> 00:47:41.210 align:middle line:90% that means "not bearable." 00:47:41.210 --> 00:47:41.840 align:middle line:90% There, yes. 00:47:41.840 --> 00:47:42.980 align:middle line:90% OK, good. 00:47:42.980 --> 00:47:45.380 align:middle line:84% I got distracted by emotions, as so often. 00:47:45.380 --> 00:47:50.330 align:middle line:84% But yeah that, just has to do with the fact that "un-"-- 00:47:50.330 --> 00:47:53.660 align:middle line:84% we're now debating about whether you can unsink a ship, 00:47:53.660 --> 00:47:58.155 align:middle line:84% but you surely can't unbear a loss. 00:47:58.155 --> 00:47:59.780 align:middle line:84% I don't even know what that would mean. 00:47:59.780 --> 00:48:02.750 align:middle line:90% Yeah, yeah. 00:48:02.750 --> 00:48:03.830 align:middle line:90% Wow, lots of questions. 00:48:03.830 --> 00:48:05.120 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:48:05.120 --> 00:48:07.940 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think it's about the number of times [INAUDIBLE].. 00:48:07.940 --> 00:48:11.930 align:middle line:84% Like we used to say "follow," and now we can say "unfollow." 00:48:11.930 --> 00:48:13.820 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, yeah. 00:48:13.820 --> 00:48:15.362 align:middle line:84% Yeah, yeah, "follow" and "unfollow" 00:48:15.362 --> 00:48:16.820 align:middle line:84% is a really good example, actually. 00:48:16.820 --> 00:48:20.300 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so it used to not be possible to unfollow things. 00:48:20.300 --> 00:48:23.000 align:middle line:84% One crucial difference, I guess, is 00:48:23.000 --> 00:48:26.600 align:middle line:84% that if you wrap something or tie something, 00:48:26.600 --> 00:48:29.357 align:middle line:84% you change it so that it's different now 00:48:29.357 --> 00:48:30.690 align:middle line:90% as a result of what you've done. 00:48:30.690 --> 00:48:33.177 align:middle line:84% So if you tie something, it used to be just a string, 00:48:33.177 --> 00:48:34.010 align:middle line:90% and now it's a knot. 00:48:34.010 --> 00:48:36.650 align:middle line:84% Or if you wrap something, it used to be a thing, 00:48:36.650 --> 00:48:38.240 align:middle line:90% and now it's a present. 00:48:38.240 --> 00:48:41.540 align:middle line:84% If you sink a ship, this is what we've all been talking about. 00:48:41.540 --> 00:48:45.080 align:middle line:84% It goes from being on top of the water to being underneath it. 00:48:45.080 --> 00:48:51.390 align:middle line:84% As opposed to "follow," if you follow someone in real life, 00:48:51.390 --> 00:48:53.520 align:middle line:90% you don't do anything to them. 00:48:53.520 --> 00:48:55.230 align:middle line:84% They're still the same as they were. 00:48:55.230 --> 00:48:56.780 align:middle line:90% We kind of have this intuition. 00:48:56.780 --> 00:48:59.000 align:middle line:84% The "follow" that you can unfollow someone 00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:01.340 align:middle line:84% is something that changes them from a person who 00:49:01.340 --> 00:49:04.640 align:middle line:84% has n number of followers to a person who has 00:49:04.640 --> 00:49:06.570 align:middle line:90% n plus 1 number of followers. 00:49:06.570 --> 00:49:09.230 align:middle line:84% So there's something about whether the verb changes 00:49:09.230 --> 00:49:11.120 align:middle line:90% the state of the object. 00:49:11.120 --> 00:49:14.180 align:middle line:84% I think that's got something to do with all this, which 00:49:14.180 --> 00:49:17.420 align:middle line:84% is why these examples about unthinking ships and breaking 00:49:17.420 --> 00:49:21.080 align:middle line:84% pots are kind of interesting to think about. 00:49:21.080 --> 00:49:21.800 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:49:21.800 --> 00:49:24.170 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: It turns out I just searched 00:49:24.170 --> 00:49:26.660 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE] "unsink" on the Scrabble dictionary, 00:49:26.660 --> 00:49:27.800 align:middle line:90% and it says no. 00:49:27.800 --> 00:49:30.940 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Well, Scrabble thinks it's not a word. 00:49:30.940 --> 00:49:33.140 align:middle line:84% So I mean, Scrabble, they have to have rules. 00:49:33.140 --> 00:49:35.660 align:middle line:84% They have to draw a line somewhere, yeah. 00:49:35.660 --> 00:49:36.380 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:49:36.380 --> 00:49:41.930 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] they make [INAUDIBLE].. 00:49:41.930 --> 00:49:45.890 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: So Scrabble, we should have a Scrabble version 00:49:45.890 --> 00:49:48.710 align:middle line:84% of 24.900 where we try to figure out what's going on together. 00:49:48.710 --> 00:49:50.690 align:middle line:84% But Scrabble is not English, right? 00:49:50.690 --> 00:49:53.760 align:middle line:84% It's something related to English, but not the same. 00:49:53.760 --> 00:49:55.430 align:middle line:84% We're allowed to have our own intuitions 00:49:55.430 --> 00:49:58.005 align:middle line:84% about what things are words and what things aren't, Yeah? 00:49:58.005 --> 00:50:00.380 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Yeah, I'm not sure how to phrase this question, 00:50:00.380 --> 00:50:02.150 align:middle line:84% but it's like you started off the lecture 00:50:02.150 --> 00:50:04.425 align:middle line:84% by saying that meaning comes from morphology. 00:50:04.425 --> 00:50:05.300 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes. 00:50:05.300 --> 00:50:07.092 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: And now we're trying to, I guess, 00:50:07.092 --> 00:50:09.000 align:middle line:84% figure out what [INAUDIBLE] means, right? 00:50:09.000 --> 00:50:11.250 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: So one way to think about it would be 00:50:11.250 --> 00:50:14.000 align:middle line:84% to think, so this stuff about which verbs can you attach 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:16.470 align:middle line:90% "un-" to, where I just said-- 00:50:16.470 --> 00:50:19.550 align:middle line:84% well, so we started by saying "un-" can attach to verbs. 00:50:19.550 --> 00:50:23.120 align:middle line:84% And it gives you a new verb that means, 00:50:23.120 --> 00:50:26.720 align:middle line:84% "take the thing that is in the state resulting 00:50:26.720 --> 00:50:30.050 align:middle line:84% from the action of the verb and put it back in the state 00:50:30.050 --> 00:50:32.750 align:middle line:84% that it was in before you did the verb." 00:50:32.750 --> 00:50:36.740 align:middle line:84% That's one way of defining what "un-" means, yeah? 00:50:36.740 --> 00:50:39.330 align:middle line:90% And then, did that make sense? 00:50:39.330 --> 00:50:42.020 align:middle line:84% So if you untie something, what does that do? 00:50:42.020 --> 00:50:44.780 align:middle line:84% It takes something which is tied, which is in the state 00:50:44.780 --> 00:50:47.180 align:middle line:84% that you're in as a result of the verb "to tie," 00:50:47.180 --> 00:50:51.240 align:middle line:84% and converts it into something which is not tied anymore. 00:50:51.240 --> 00:50:54.290 align:middle line:84% That's what it is to "untie" something. 00:50:54.290 --> 00:50:57.080 align:middle line:84% So if that's what "un-" means, then yes, 00:50:57.080 --> 00:50:58.923 align:middle line:84% you should be able to attach it to verbs. 00:50:58.923 --> 00:51:00.590 align:middle line:84% But you should only be able to attach it 00:51:00.590 --> 00:51:03.230 align:middle line:84% to verbs that change the state of their objects 00:51:03.230 --> 00:51:06.620 align:middle line:84% because it makes reference to this change 00:51:06.620 --> 00:51:08.880 align:middle line:90% of the state of the object. 00:51:08.880 --> 00:51:11.960 align:middle line:84% This is me making stuff up right here in front of all of you, 00:51:11.960 --> 00:51:13.670 align:middle line:90% but this seems reasonable to me. 00:51:13.670 --> 00:51:16.220 align:middle line:84% I think it might be something like that. 00:51:16.220 --> 00:51:16.820 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:51:16.820 --> 00:51:19.535 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Wouldn't that make "unthink" valid? 00:51:19.535 --> 00:51:20.660 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: It should. 00:51:20.660 --> 00:51:22.570 align:middle line:84% Well, so it should be valid, yes. 00:51:22.570 --> 00:51:23.360 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: When you think something, 00:51:23.360 --> 00:51:24.527 align:middle line:90% doesn't it change the state? 00:51:24.527 --> 00:51:27.320 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: It certainly does change the state, yes. 00:51:27.320 --> 00:51:28.500 align:middle line:90% Gosh, is that the time? 00:51:28.500 --> 00:51:29.000 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:51:29.000 --> 00:51:30.980 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:51:30.980 --> 00:51:35.060 align:middle line:84% So look, this is-- so for me, at least, this is what is cool 00:51:35.060 --> 00:51:36.950 align:middle line:90% and fun about linguistics. 00:51:36.950 --> 00:51:39.790 align:middle line:84% Here it is, day 3, and we are right on the edge. 00:51:39.790 --> 00:51:42.290 align:middle line:84% I'm a professional linguist, this is what I do for a living, 00:51:42.290 --> 00:51:45.530 align:middle line:84% and I'm not quite sure what the answer to this question is. 00:51:45.530 --> 00:51:48.950 align:middle line:84% So you guys could be the ones who figure out 00:51:48.950 --> 00:51:51.200 align:middle line:84% what the heck is going on with "unsink," 00:51:51.200 --> 00:51:53.210 align:middle line:84% to which the answer could be, yeah, 00:51:53.210 --> 00:51:55.040 align:middle line:90% "unsink" is more or less OK. 00:51:55.040 --> 00:51:57.260 align:middle line:84% It's just not something people do all the time, 00:51:57.260 --> 00:51:58.760 align:middle line:84% and so we're not used to hearing it. 00:51:58.760 --> 00:52:01.370 align:middle line:84% Maybe that's the easy way of getting out of where I am. 00:52:01.370 --> 00:52:03.950 align:middle line:84% Or maybe there's more to say about what exactly "un-" 00:52:03.950 --> 00:52:05.510 align:middle line:90% does to the meaning of the verb. 00:52:05.510 --> 00:52:07.520 align:middle line:84% But that's the kind of answer to your question 00:52:07.520 --> 00:52:08.540 align:middle line:90% that we would get-- 00:52:08.540 --> 00:52:11.730 align:middle line:84% that if we define everything about the meaning of "un-" 00:52:11.730 --> 00:52:14.450 align:middle line:84% that that will help us understand why it can attach 00:52:14.450 --> 00:52:16.280 align:middle line:84% to some verbs but not others, yeah. 00:52:16.280 --> 00:52:19.290 align:middle line:84% And as you can see, we're not quite there, maybe. 00:52:19.290 --> 00:52:21.740 align:middle line:90% Joseph? 00:52:21.740 --> 00:52:26.000 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So well, I guess if you put it together-- 00:52:26.000 --> 00:52:28.740 align:middle line:84% if you have the verb "help," could you help somebody-- 00:52:28.740 --> 00:52:29.615 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes? 00:52:29.615 --> 00:52:31.262 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 00:52:31.262 --> 00:52:33.095 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Well, you can be unhelpful. 00:52:33.095 --> 00:52:33.770 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Unhelpful. 00:52:33.770 --> 00:52:34.812 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, god. 00:52:34.812 --> 00:52:37.117 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:52:37.117 --> 00:52:39.200 align:middle line:84% But there, you're adding it to an adjective, yeah. 00:52:39.200 --> 00:52:42.842 align:middle line:84% Yeah, yeah, so you cannot unhelp someone. 00:52:42.842 --> 00:52:44.570 align:middle line:90% [INTERPOSING VOICES] 00:52:44.570 --> 00:52:47.960 align:middle line:84% So I mean this is a good example of something somebody should 00:52:47.960 --> 00:52:49.700 align:middle line:84% have said to me when I first said, well, 00:52:49.700 --> 00:52:54.110 align:middle line:84% some verbs change the state of the object, and others don't. 00:52:54.110 --> 00:52:57.320 align:middle line:84% So if I burn something, it goes from being a thing 00:52:57.320 --> 00:52:58.830 align:middle line:90% to being a pile of carbon. 00:52:58.830 --> 00:53:00.980 align:middle line:84% And if I break something, it goes 00:53:00.980 --> 00:53:02.270 align:middle line:90% from being a thing to being-- 00:53:02.270 --> 00:53:03.770 align:middle line:84% if I sink a ship, it goes from being 00:53:03.770 --> 00:53:05.645 align:middle line:84% on top of the water to being under the water. 00:53:05.645 --> 00:53:09.170 align:middle line:84% If I help someone, maybe they're the same 00:53:09.170 --> 00:53:12.922 align:middle line:84% as they were before, just in a better position? 00:53:12.922 --> 00:53:15.380 align:middle line:84% This is the place where you're entitled to ask, what do you 00:53:15.380 --> 00:53:16.700 align:middle line:90% mean by changing the state? 00:53:16.700 --> 00:53:18.110 align:middle line:90% What counts as the state? 00:53:18.110 --> 00:53:20.180 align:middle line:90% And we really must go on. 00:53:20.180 --> 00:53:20.810 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:53:20.810 --> 00:53:22.925 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] reversible change in state? 00:53:22.925 --> 00:53:24.800 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I guess yeah, maybe that's-- 00:53:24.800 --> 00:53:27.020 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So you can't exactly revert your help. 00:53:27.020 --> 00:53:28.310 align:middle line:90% Like you can hurt someone. 00:53:28.310 --> 00:53:28.700 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah. 00:53:28.700 --> 00:53:29.420 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Following that, but you 00:53:29.420 --> 00:53:31.590 align:middle line:84% can't exactly undo the help that you've already done. 00:53:31.590 --> 00:53:32.270 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: I don't know. 00:53:32.270 --> 00:53:34.353 align:middle line:84% I mean, look, suppose I write you a recommendation 00:53:34.353 --> 00:53:35.540 align:middle line:90% letter for a job, right? 00:53:35.540 --> 00:53:36.680 align:middle line:90% That's helpful to you. 00:53:36.680 --> 00:53:37.340 align:middle line:90% I helped him. 00:53:37.340 --> 00:53:39.380 align:middle line:84% And then, suppose I write another letter saying, 00:53:39.380 --> 00:53:39.963 align:middle line:90% you know what? 00:53:39.963 --> 00:53:41.180 align:middle line:90% I take it all back. 00:53:41.180 --> 00:53:43.670 align:middle line:84% In fact, it's the opposite of everything I just said. 00:53:43.670 --> 00:53:46.350 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] person [INAUDIBLE].. 00:53:46.350 --> 00:53:47.488 align:middle line:90% [INTERPOSING VOICES] 00:53:47.488 --> 00:53:48.780 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Hold on, guys. 00:53:48.780 --> 00:53:51.800 align:middle line:84% Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I see what you mean. 00:53:51.800 --> 00:53:55.397 align:middle line:84% All right, so moving on, then, from this slide, 00:53:55.397 --> 00:53:57.230 align:middle line:84% which has generated so much cool discussion. 00:53:57.230 --> 00:53:59.180 align:middle line:90% This is great. 00:53:59.180 --> 00:54:00.050 align:middle line:90% So trees. 00:54:00.050 --> 00:54:03.440 align:middle line:84% Yeah, there, why is "unlockable" ambiguous? 00:54:03.440 --> 00:54:05.960 align:middle line:84% Because it has two trees-- or to put it another way, 00:54:05.960 --> 00:54:09.020 align:middle line:84% there are these two morphemes you're adding to "lock," 00:54:09.020 --> 00:54:11.450 align:middle line:84% and you can add them in either order, 00:54:11.450 --> 00:54:14.570 align:middle line:84% with the result that the word is ambiguous in the way 00:54:14.570 --> 00:54:18.630 align:middle line:90% that we suspect, we expect. 00:54:18.630 --> 00:54:22.830 align:middle line:84% So here's a model for how we're going to make words. 00:54:22.830 --> 00:54:26.270 align:middle line:84% We're going to take morphemes, pairs of morphemes, 00:54:26.270 --> 00:54:28.700 align:middle line:84% and we're going to glom them together. 00:54:28.700 --> 00:54:31.893 align:middle line:84% And we feel silly saying the word "glom" over and over 00:54:31.893 --> 00:54:33.810 align:middle line:84% again, so we've made up another word for that. 00:54:33.810 --> 00:54:35.360 align:middle line:90% We call it "merge." 00:54:35.360 --> 00:54:40.100 align:middle line:84% So "merge" is this process that allows you to take two things 00:54:40.100 --> 00:54:43.700 align:middle line:84% and put them together and make a new thing. 00:54:43.700 --> 00:54:47.780 align:middle line:84% So you take "un-" and "lock," and you merge them together 00:54:47.780 --> 00:54:51.020 align:middle line:90% to make "unlock." 00:54:51.020 --> 00:54:55.150 align:middle line:84% Merge is recursive, which means only that it 00:54:55.150 --> 00:54:57.150 align:middle line:90% can reapply to its own output. 00:54:57.150 --> 00:55:01.550 align:middle line:84% So you take "un-" and "lock" and merge them to make "unlock," 00:55:01.550 --> 00:55:03.740 align:middle line:84% and now you have a new thing, "unlock." 00:55:03.740 --> 00:55:06.170 align:middle line:90% And that can also undergo merge. 00:55:06.170 --> 00:55:09.110 align:middle line:84% So you can take "unlock" and merge it with "able" 00:55:09.110 --> 00:55:10.550 align:middle line:90% to get you "unlockable". 00:55:10.550 --> 00:55:13.580 align:middle line:84% That's what's going on in the tree on the left. 00:55:13.580 --> 00:55:18.440 align:middle line:84% That's all linguists mean when we say that merge is recursive. 00:55:18.440 --> 00:55:20.300 align:middle line:84% You may sometimes hear people have 00:55:20.300 --> 00:55:21.660 align:middle line:90% arguments about what it means. 00:55:21.660 --> 00:55:22.560 align:middle line:90% That's what it means. 00:55:22.560 --> 00:55:25.310 align:middle line:84% So it means once you've merged two things to create 00:55:25.310 --> 00:55:27.200 align:middle line:84% a new thing, you can take that new thing 00:55:27.200 --> 00:55:30.050 align:middle line:84% and apply merge to it as well and make new things that way. 00:55:30.050 --> 00:55:32.250 align:middle line:90% Yeah, that's all it means. 00:55:32.250 --> 00:55:36.240 align:middle line:84% OK, and then there are statements which we have to put 00:55:36.240 --> 00:55:41.220 align:middle line:84% somewhere, like "-able" needs to merge with a verb 00:55:41.220 --> 00:55:45.390 align:middle line:90% and the result is an adjective-- 00:55:45.390 --> 00:55:48.540 align:middle line:90% things like that. 00:55:48.540 --> 00:55:49.535 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:55:49.535 --> 00:55:51.285 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Does the tree have to be binary? 00:55:51.285 --> 00:55:54.180 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Ah, so I said we're going to take two things, 00:55:54.180 --> 00:55:56.305 align:middle line:84% and we're going to merge them and make a new thing. 00:55:56.305 --> 00:55:58.360 align:middle line:90% 00:55:58.360 --> 00:56:01.440 align:middle line:84% A really good question about which people have arguments, 00:56:01.440 --> 00:56:03.330 align:middle line:90% yeah? 00:56:03.330 --> 00:56:07.930 align:middle line:84% Actually, it seems to be the case that the trees are binary, 00:56:07.930 --> 00:56:08.980 align:middle line:90% which is interesting. 00:56:08.980 --> 00:56:11.370 align:middle line:84% So to put it another way, there are 00:56:11.370 --> 00:56:13.110 align:middle line:84% lots of places where you can't tell 00:56:13.110 --> 00:56:16.390 align:middle line:84% whether the tree is binary, or ternary, or whatever. 00:56:16.390 --> 00:56:18.330 align:middle line:84% But in every place where you can tell, 00:56:18.330 --> 00:56:20.520 align:middle line:84% nobody has come up with a convincing example 00:56:20.520 --> 00:56:23.520 align:middle line:84% of a tree that is anything other than binary, which is itself 00:56:23.520 --> 00:56:24.450 align:middle line:90% kind of interesting. 00:56:24.450 --> 00:56:27.820 align:middle line:84% I want to try to understand why that is. 00:56:27.820 --> 00:56:30.220 align:middle line:84% We're going to be doing lots of merging in morphology. 00:56:30.220 --> 00:56:31.987 align:middle line:84% And then, not so much in phonology. 00:56:31.987 --> 00:56:33.570 align:middle line:84% And then, when we get to syntax, there 00:56:33.570 --> 00:56:36.970 align:middle line:84% will be much merging, many merging of things-- words, 00:56:36.970 --> 00:56:40.240 align:middle line:84% putting them together to make phrases of various kinds. 00:56:40.240 --> 00:56:44.730 align:middle line:84% So try to get comfortable with the concept of merge. 00:56:44.730 --> 00:56:46.180 align:middle line:90% It should be easy. 00:56:46.180 --> 00:56:49.500 align:middle line:90% It's not a hard concept. 00:56:49.500 --> 00:56:53.480 align:middle line:90% OK, this is great. 00:56:53.480 --> 00:56:54.980 align:middle line:84% I just want to talk-- ooh, I'm going 00:56:54.980 --> 00:56:56.960 align:middle line:84% to talk a little more systematically 00:56:56.960 --> 00:56:58.010 align:middle line:90% about allomorphs. 00:56:58.010 --> 00:57:02.420 align:middle line:84% So I mentioned before, you take morphemes, 00:57:02.420 --> 00:57:05.330 align:middle line:84% you merge them together, you create new things, 00:57:05.330 --> 00:57:08.030 align:middle line:84% and what often happens is that one or another or both 00:57:08.030 --> 00:57:10.010 align:middle line:84% of the morphemes will change its form. 00:57:10.010 --> 00:57:11.877 align:middle line:84% So the past tense of "leap" is "leaped" 00:57:11.877 --> 00:57:12.530 align:middle line:90% [pronounced like "lept"]. 00:57:12.530 --> 00:57:15.170 align:middle line:84% The verb changes from "leap" to "leap" [pronounced like "lep"]. 00:57:15.170 --> 00:57:17.450 align:middle line:84% The past tense suffix can either be "t," or "d," 00:57:17.450 --> 00:57:19.890 align:middle line:90% or some other things. 00:57:19.890 --> 00:57:22.250 align:middle line:84% So I want to talk a little bit systematically 00:57:22.250 --> 00:57:24.620 align:middle line:90% about these allomorphs. 00:57:24.620 --> 00:57:28.970 align:middle line:84% I'll start by saying that there are cases where there just 00:57:28.970 --> 00:57:33.440 align:middle line:84% isn't anything interesting, there isn't anything helpful 00:57:33.440 --> 00:57:34.640 align:middle line:90% to say. 00:57:34.640 --> 00:57:38.090 align:middle line:84% Past tense of "go" is "went," and it just is. 00:57:38.090 --> 00:57:40.670 align:middle line:84% If you want to learn English, you've got to learn that. 00:57:40.670 --> 00:57:42.567 align:middle line:90% There's nothing else to say. 00:57:42.567 --> 00:57:44.150 align:middle line:84% But there are other places where there 00:57:44.150 --> 00:57:47.585 align:middle line:84% are general laws about which allomorph 00:57:47.585 --> 00:57:49.460 align:middle line:84% you're going to get under which circumstance. 00:57:49.460 --> 00:57:51.260 align:middle line:84% We alluded to that a little bit when 00:57:51.260 --> 00:57:55.100 align:middle line:84% we were talking about cats and dogs, that "s" and "z." 00:57:55.100 --> 00:57:57.170 align:middle line:84% Those allomorphs of the plural are 00:57:57.170 --> 00:57:59.250 align:middle line:84% conditioned by the sound that's before them. 00:57:59.250 --> 00:58:00.960 align:middle line:90% And we'll talk more about that. 00:58:00.960 --> 00:58:03.410 align:middle line:84% So I'm going to give you an example where there's more 00:58:03.410 --> 00:58:05.490 align:middle line:90% to say about the allomorphs. 00:58:05.490 --> 00:58:09.050 align:middle line:90% This is an example from Polish. 00:58:09.050 --> 00:58:13.010 align:middle line:84% I should say I've spelled Polish here in a strange way. 00:58:13.010 --> 00:58:15.230 align:middle line:84% Anybody here speaks Polish, this isn't 00:58:15.230 --> 00:58:17.360 align:middle line:84% the way you're used to seeing Polish spelled. 00:58:17.360 --> 00:58:20.650 align:middle line:84% So I've spelled it in a way that makes it easier for people who 00:58:20.650 --> 00:58:23.150 align:middle line:84% don't speak Polish to see what the words-- how the words are 00:58:23.150 --> 00:58:25.320 align:middle line:90% pronounced, more or less. 00:58:25.320 --> 00:58:27.480 align:middle line:90% So here are some Polish words. 00:58:27.480 --> 00:58:30.590 align:middle line:84% They mean "language," "pot," "juice," and "bow," 00:58:30.590 --> 00:58:33.210 align:middle line:84% and you've got some plurals there. 00:58:33.210 --> 00:58:35.690 align:middle line:84% So does anybody here speak Polish? 00:58:35.690 --> 00:58:38.550 align:middle line:84% Excellent, I can just make anything up that I want. 00:58:38.550 --> 00:58:39.050 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:58:39.050 --> 00:58:41.000 align:middle line:84% Believe me, this is how Polish works. 00:58:41.000 --> 00:58:41.720 align:middle line:90% It is, really. 00:58:41.720 --> 00:58:43.580 align:middle line:90% I'm not making things up. 00:58:43.580 --> 00:58:45.247 align:middle line:84% Does anybody find any morphemes in here? 00:58:45.247 --> 00:58:47.497 align:middle line:84% I mean, there's morphemes that mean "language", "pot," 00:58:47.497 --> 00:58:48.320 align:middle line:90% "juice," and "bow." 00:58:48.320 --> 00:58:50.660 align:middle line:90% What's the plural morpheme? 00:58:50.660 --> 00:58:51.350 align:middle line:90% "Ee," yeah? 00:58:51.350 --> 00:58:53.300 align:middle line:84% So it's a suffix, it's spelled with the letter 00:58:53.300 --> 00:58:55.250 align:middle line:90% "I" it's pronounced, "ee". 00:58:55.250 --> 00:58:58.130 align:middle line:90% No allomorphy here so far. 00:58:58.130 --> 00:58:59.750 align:middle line:90% Here are some more words-- 00:58:59.750 --> 00:59:04.790 align:middle line:84% "bank of a river," "debt," and "lie," which have plurals. 00:59:04.790 --> 00:59:06.950 align:middle line:84% The idea of a plural of "lie" is a little strange, 00:59:06.950 --> 00:59:09.530 align:middle line:84% if you ask me, but nobody asked me. 00:59:09.530 --> 00:59:12.290 align:middle line:84% If you had the plural morpheme, plural morpheme there is "ee", 00:59:12.290 --> 00:59:14.520 align:middle line:90% and you get those plurals. 00:59:14.520 --> 00:59:16.407 align:middle line:90% Anybody seeing any allomorphs? 00:59:16.407 --> 00:59:19.030 align:middle line:90% 00:59:19.030 --> 00:59:21.730 align:middle line:84% So the plural suffix is still the same, 00:59:21.730 --> 00:59:25.780 align:middle line:84% but "debt," for example, has two allomorphs. 00:59:25.780 --> 00:59:27.790 align:middle line:90% What are they? 00:59:27.790 --> 00:59:29.290 align:middle line:84% Somebody attempt to pronounce them. 00:59:29.290 --> 00:59:32.330 align:middle line:90% 00:59:32.330 --> 00:59:35.390 align:middle line:84% It's OK, none of us speak Polish. 00:59:35.390 --> 00:59:35.900 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:59:35.900 --> 00:59:37.010 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: "Duk" and "dug?" 00:59:37.010 --> 00:59:39.950 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Yeah, we've got "duk" and "dug", yeah. 00:59:39.950 --> 00:59:42.050 align:middle line:84% So "debt" has one allomorph that ends 00:59:42.050 --> 00:59:44.645 align:middle line:84% in a "k" and another allomorph that ends in a "g." 00:59:44.645 --> 00:59:47.800 align:middle line:90% 00:59:47.800 --> 00:59:49.840 align:middle line:84% What's the rule, do you think, that 00:59:49.840 --> 00:59:51.895 align:middle line:84% determines when you get "k" and when you get "g"? 00:59:51.895 --> 00:59:57.660 align:middle line:90% 00:59:57.660 --> 01:00:00.210 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 01:00:00.210 --> 01:00:02.970 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Would it have to do with the content that 01:00:02.970 --> 01:00:09.900 align:middle line:84% comes before the "l," where it [INAUDIBLE] like sound like 01:00:09.900 --> 01:00:13.565 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE],, so it's like "ch," "k"? 01:00:13.565 --> 01:00:14.690 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, I see. 01:00:14.690 --> 01:00:16.160 align:middle line:90% That's a neat idea. 01:00:16.160 --> 01:00:18.160 align:middle line:84% So maybe we could work out a way-- so all of you 01:00:18.160 --> 01:00:19.960 align:middle line:90% are realizing the problem. 01:00:19.960 --> 01:00:22.240 align:middle line:84% The problem is there are the words we started with, 01:00:22.240 --> 01:00:24.340 align:middle line:84% where we have all these words that end in "k," 01:00:24.340 --> 01:00:25.882 align:middle line:84% and when you make the plural, there's 01:00:25.882 --> 01:00:27.170 align:middle line:90% still a "k" before the "ee". 01:00:27.170 --> 01:00:28.670 align:middle line:84% And then, we have these other words, 01:00:28.670 --> 01:00:31.253 align:middle line:84% where the word ends in "k," and then, when you add the plural, 01:00:31.253 --> 01:00:31.960 align:middle line:90% you get a "g." 01:00:31.960 --> 01:00:32.460 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 01:00:32.460 --> 01:00:34.418 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I feel like we need more information, 01:00:34.418 --> 01:00:36.880 align:middle line:84% because even if you look at the words for "bow" and "lye," 01:00:36.880 --> 01:00:38.785 align:middle line:84% they're the same word in the singular form. 01:00:38.785 --> 01:00:40.160 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Very nice point. 01:00:40.160 --> 01:00:44.260 align:middle line:84% So this slide was carefully constructed 01:00:44.260 --> 01:00:46.240 align:middle line:84% to have what's called a minimal pair. 01:00:46.240 --> 01:00:50.560 align:middle line:84% Yeah, "bow" and "lie" are both pronounced "wuk" 01:00:50.560 --> 01:00:56.110 align:middle line:84% in the singular, but in plural, the plural of is "wuki" 01:00:56.110 --> 01:00:59.770 align:middle line:84% and the plural of lie is "wugi," yeah? 01:00:59.770 --> 01:01:01.550 align:middle line:84% This is meant to make us despair-- 01:01:01.550 --> 01:01:04.240 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 01:01:04.240 --> 01:01:06.790 align:middle line:84% --about the option that you were raising right, 01:01:06.790 --> 01:01:10.570 align:middle line:84% which was maybe if we look at everything about the word, 01:01:10.570 --> 01:01:13.380 align:middle line:84% we'll be able to predict which "k"s become "g"s and which "k"s 01:01:13.380 --> 01:01:14.410 align:middle line:90% stay "k"s. 01:01:14.410 --> 01:01:16.090 align:middle line:90% No, give up. 01:01:16.090 --> 01:01:17.830 align:middle line:90% Despair, yeah? 01:01:17.830 --> 01:01:18.610 align:middle line:90% Cannot be done. 01:01:18.610 --> 01:01:20.550 align:middle line:84% We cannot, if we start with a "k," 01:01:20.550 --> 01:01:23.050 align:middle line:84% we cannot predict which "k"s will become "g"s and which ones 01:01:23.050 --> 01:01:24.230 align:middle line:90% will not. 01:01:24.230 --> 01:01:24.898 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 01:01:24.898 --> 01:01:27.190 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] one of those examples [INAUDIBLE] 01:01:27.190 --> 01:01:30.377 align:middle line:84% not [INAUDIBLE] things [INAUDIBLE],, but [INAUDIBLE].. 01:01:30.377 --> 01:01:32.210 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I think that's a neat idea. 01:01:32.210 --> 01:01:34.810 align:middle line:90% So can you say more about that? 01:01:34.810 --> 01:01:39.718 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I mean, my first guess might just be that if the end 01:01:39.718 --> 01:01:42.820 align:middle line:84% in "g-i", is it [INAUDIBLE] into a "k"? 01:01:42.820 --> 01:01:45.000 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: OK, yeah so I'll just 01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:46.750 align:middle line:84% say again what you just said, just to make 01:01:46.750 --> 01:01:47.980 align:middle line:90% sure everybody heard it. 01:01:47.980 --> 01:01:52.420 align:middle line:84% I framed the problem as, which "k"s change into "g"s, 01:01:52.420 --> 01:01:54.430 align:middle line:84% and which "k"s don't change into "g"s? 01:01:54.430 --> 01:01:57.250 align:middle line:84% And then we convinced ourselves, thanks to your point, 01:01:57.250 --> 01:01:59.200 align:middle line:90% that problem is impossible. 01:01:59.200 --> 01:02:01.990 align:middle line:84% We will just have to list, well, sometimes "k" becomes "g." 01:02:01.990 --> 01:02:03.400 align:middle line:84% Sometimes "k" doesn't become "g." 01:02:03.400 --> 01:02:07.300 align:middle line:84% But that's because I phrased the problem as, which "k" 01:02:07.300 --> 01:02:09.070 align:middle line:84% becomes "k" and which one doesn't? 01:02:09.070 --> 01:02:11.697 align:middle line:84% If we do, if we look at this problem 01:02:11.697 --> 01:02:13.780 align:middle line:84% in the other direction-- this is your suggestion-- 01:02:13.780 --> 01:02:17.080 align:middle line:84% if we start with the plural and think about the singular, 01:02:17.080 --> 01:02:18.790 align:middle line:84% then we can say to ourselves, OK, there 01:02:18.790 --> 01:02:22.990 align:middle line:84% are some nouns that end in "k" and some nouns that end in "g." 01:02:22.990 --> 01:02:24.850 align:middle line:84% In the singular, what's the rule? 01:02:24.850 --> 01:02:27.428 align:middle line:84% In the singular, do you get "k," or do you get "g"? 01:02:27.428 --> 01:02:27.970 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: "k" 01:02:27.970 --> 01:02:29.590 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: "k," always. 01:02:29.590 --> 01:02:35.380 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so what we need for Polish is the willingness to say, 01:02:35.380 --> 01:02:37.420 align:middle line:84% yeah, there are nouns that end in "k" 01:02:37.420 --> 01:02:39.060 align:middle line:90% and nouns that end in "g." 01:02:39.060 --> 01:02:43.180 align:middle line:84% The plural suffix is this letter "i," this "ee." 01:02:43.180 --> 01:02:45.140 align:middle line:90% And there's a very general rule. 01:02:45.140 --> 01:02:50.310 align:middle line:84% If you have a "g" at the end of a word, turn it into a "k." 01:02:50.310 --> 01:02:56.700 align:middle line:84% So if we're making the lexicon for Polish, 01:02:56.700 --> 01:02:59.820 align:middle line:84% what we want is for the word for "bow" 01:02:59.820 --> 01:03:03.810 align:middle line:84% to be in the lexicon "wuk," and for the word for "lye" 01:03:03.810 --> 01:03:06.060 align:middle line:90% to be in the lexicon "wug." 01:03:06.060 --> 01:03:09.990 align:middle line:84% Yeah, and then, the plural suffix is "ee," 01:03:09.990 --> 01:03:16.920 align:middle line:84% and there's a general rule, "g" at the end of a word 01:03:16.920 --> 01:03:23.190 align:middle line:90% becomes "k," right? 01:03:23.190 --> 01:03:26.880 align:middle line:84% This means the lexicon is a little bit abstract. 01:03:26.880 --> 01:03:30.270 align:middle line:84% if you ask a Polish speaker, what's the word for "lye," 01:03:30.270 --> 01:03:31.950 align:middle line:90% they're going to say "wuok." 01:03:31.950 --> 01:03:33.480 align:middle line:84% And if you say, no, it's not, it's 01:03:33.480 --> 01:03:35.190 align:middle line:84% "wug," they're going to be like, who's 01:03:35.190 --> 01:03:37.200 align:middle line:84% the Polish speaker around here, you or me? 01:03:37.200 --> 01:03:37.950 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 01:03:37.950 --> 01:03:40.410 align:middle line:84% But in fact, you are right and the Polish speaker is wrong. 01:03:40.410 --> 01:03:42.660 align:middle line:84% You have the word for "lye" is "wug," 01:03:42.660 --> 01:03:44.430 align:middle line:90% and then there's this rule-- 01:03:44.430 --> 01:03:46.930 align:middle line:84% "g" becomes "k" at the ends of words. 01:03:46.930 --> 01:03:49.440 align:middle line:84% What that means is that the morpheme for "lye," 01:03:49.440 --> 01:03:52.500 align:middle line:84% if we want to know, what's the morpheme for "lye," well, 01:03:52.500 --> 01:03:56.190 align:middle line:84% it isn't what the speaker would say it is necessarily. 01:03:56.190 --> 01:03:59.520 align:middle line:84% It doesn't have to be a morpheme that you ever hear by itself. 01:03:59.520 --> 01:04:02.470 align:middle line:84% It only shows up in the plural, not in the singular. 01:04:02.470 --> 01:04:04.962 align:middle line:84% That's the most economical way of talking about Polish. 01:04:04.962 --> 01:04:06.420 align:middle line:84% Because the fact is, I can tell you 01:04:06.420 --> 01:04:09.200 align:middle line:84% this from my vast knowledge of Polish, 01:04:09.200 --> 01:04:11.700 align:middle line:84% you will never, no matter how many Polish words you look at, 01:04:11.700 --> 01:04:13.410 align:middle line:90% find one that ends with a "g." 01:04:13.410 --> 01:04:14.910 align:middle line:90% They never do. 01:04:14.910 --> 01:04:17.160 align:middle line:84% Plenty that end in "k," but they never end with a "g." 01:04:17.160 --> 01:04:19.935 align:middle line:84% So this rule is one that we can rely on. 01:04:19.935 --> 01:04:20.435 align:middle line:90% Yes? 01:04:20.435 --> 01:04:23.030 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Does that make "wug" a bound morpheme? 01:04:23.030 --> 01:04:25.610 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 01:04:25.610 --> 01:04:30.140 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Well, this morpheme 01:04:30.140 --> 01:04:33.050 align:middle line:84% is a free morpheme because it doesn't 01:04:33.050 --> 01:04:35.750 align:middle line:90% need to combine with anything. 01:04:35.750 --> 01:04:39.680 align:middle line:84% It has an allomorph, "wuk," which 01:04:39.680 --> 01:04:41.780 align:middle line:84% is the result of this general sound change, 01:04:41.780 --> 01:04:43.610 align:middle line:84% that "g" becomes "k" at the ends of words. 01:04:43.610 --> 01:04:46.160 align:middle line:84% I guess that's the easiest way to say it. 01:04:46.160 --> 01:04:48.810 align:middle line:90% That's a good point, yeah. 01:04:48.810 --> 01:04:50.450 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 01:04:50.450 --> 01:04:51.920 align:middle line:90% OK. 01:04:51.920 --> 01:04:53.480 align:middle line:90% So this is a place-- 01:04:53.480 --> 01:04:56.330 align:middle line:84% I told you, go has the past tense went, 01:04:56.330 --> 01:05:00.650 align:middle line:84% and give up on coming with sound up with sound changes that 01:05:00.650 --> 01:05:01.490 align:middle line:90% will get you that. 01:05:01.490 --> 01:05:06.050 align:middle line:84% That's just our ancestors being quite peculiar. 01:05:06.050 --> 01:05:09.020 align:middle line:84% Yeah, but Polish has this general rule that 01:05:09.020 --> 01:05:10.640 align:middle line:90% changes final "g" to "k." 01:05:10.640 --> 01:05:13.040 align:middle line:84% And so for Polish, we don't in the end 01:05:13.040 --> 01:05:14.510 align:middle line:90% need to list allomorphs. 01:05:14.510 --> 01:05:17.030 align:middle line:84% "Lye" has allomorphs "wuk" and "wug." 01:05:17.030 --> 01:05:18.650 align:middle line:90% We can, if we want. 01:05:18.650 --> 01:05:19.430 align:middle line:90% We need a hobby. 01:05:19.430 --> 01:05:20.850 align:middle line:90% It'll keep us off the streets. 01:05:20.850 --> 01:05:22.580 align:middle line:84% But it's OK to just say, no, there's 01:05:22.580 --> 01:05:24.560 align:middle line:84% a word for "lye," "wug," and then there's 01:05:24.560 --> 01:05:27.140 align:middle line:84% this general sound change law that changes the "g" to a "k." 01:05:27.140 --> 01:05:28.073 align:middle line:90% Yes? 01:05:28.073 --> 01:05:29.698 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Is that just transliteration, 01:05:29.698 --> 01:05:30.890 align:middle line:90% or is it the actual "wug"? 01:05:30.890 --> 01:05:33.265 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: So this is not Polish orthography, yeah. 01:05:33.265 --> 01:05:35.905 align:middle line:84% So this is not an ordinary Polish spelling. 01:05:35.905 --> 01:05:37.280 align:middle line:84% I think I started by saying that. 01:05:37.280 --> 01:05:37.670 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 01:05:37.670 --> 01:05:39.110 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I was just [INAUDIBLE],, 01:05:39.110 --> 01:05:41.090 align:middle line:84% I don't know Polish, but I know Ukrainian and Russian. 01:05:41.090 --> 01:05:42.007 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah. 01:05:42.007 --> 01:05:43.635 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: So I [INAUDIBLE]. 01:05:43.635 --> 01:05:44.510 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes. 01:05:44.510 --> 01:05:46.640 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: And like I was just checking 01:05:46.640 --> 01:05:47.645 align:middle line:90% the actual Polish word. 01:05:47.645 --> 01:05:48.520 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes. 01:05:48.520 --> 01:05:50.020 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: And [INAUDIBLE] that actual Polish word for "wuk," 01:05:50.020 --> 01:05:51.520 align:middle line:90% "wohg," actually "g" in there. 01:05:51.520 --> 01:05:53.213 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes, yes. 01:05:53.213 --> 01:05:55.130 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] check the one for "lye"? 01:05:55.130 --> 01:05:55.630 align:middle line:90% No, no, no-- 01:05:55.630 --> 01:05:57.320 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: No, that's "lye," yeah. 01:05:57.320 --> 01:05:57.920 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 01:05:57.920 --> 01:05:58.205 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes. 01:05:58.205 --> 01:05:59.622 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: And if you check the one 01:05:59.622 --> 01:06:00.978 align:middle line:90% for "lye," that [INAUDIBLE]. 01:06:00.978 --> 01:06:01.895 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah. 01:06:01.895 --> 01:06:02.770 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] 01:06:02.770 --> 01:06:05.990 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: So I think I started this by saying, 01:06:05.990 --> 01:06:09.020 align:middle line:84% I'm going to spell these Polish words in an unusual way. 01:06:09.020 --> 01:06:11.520 align:middle line:84% And I tried to make it sound like that was for your benefit, 01:06:11.520 --> 01:06:13.430 align:middle line:84% so that you would know how the words were pronounced. 01:06:13.430 --> 01:06:15.163 align:middle line:84% But I was actually obscuring the fact-- 01:06:15.163 --> 01:06:16.580 align:middle line:84% which you were bringing up-- which 01:06:16.580 --> 01:06:20.300 align:middle line:84% is that Poles spell as though this rule had not happened. 01:06:20.300 --> 01:06:23.060 align:middle line:84% So they pronounce the word for "lye" and the word for "bow" 01:06:23.060 --> 01:06:24.500 align:middle line:90% the same way. 01:06:24.500 --> 01:06:26.060 align:middle line:84% But you're right, they spell the word 01:06:26.060 --> 01:06:27.590 align:middle line:90% for "lye" ending with the "g." 01:06:27.590 --> 01:06:30.160 align:middle line:84% They also don't use the letter W. This is their barred L. 01:06:30.160 --> 01:06:32.217 align:middle line:90% Yeah, yes? 01:06:32.217 --> 01:06:33.800 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So for language acquisition, 01:06:33.800 --> 01:06:35.240 align:middle line:90% I've been studying Polish? 01:06:35.240 --> 01:06:39.350 align:middle line:84% Because it would almost seem like speakers of Polish gain 01:06:39.350 --> 01:06:42.320 align:middle line:84% the plural form of the word before they can be singular. 01:06:42.320 --> 01:06:44.640 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Oh, I see what you mean. 01:06:44.640 --> 01:06:46.670 align:middle line:84% There's a lot of work on the acquisition 01:06:46.670 --> 01:06:49.395 align:middle line:84% of morphological and phonological rules like this. 01:06:49.395 --> 01:06:51.020 align:middle line:84% I don't know, I can't swear that people 01:06:51.020 --> 01:06:52.270 align:middle line:90% have worked on this in Polish. 01:06:52.270 --> 01:06:53.910 align:middle line:84% My understanding is that children-- 01:06:53.910 --> 01:06:55.860 align:middle line:84% this is a very common kind of sound change. 01:06:55.860 --> 01:06:58.340 align:middle line:84% And we'll talk more about it as the class goes along. 01:06:58.340 --> 01:07:00.860 align:middle line:84% And my understanding is that children who are learning 01:07:00.860 --> 01:07:02.840 align:middle line:84% languages that have this kind of sound change-- 01:07:02.840 --> 01:07:05.210 align:middle line:90% it's called final devoicing-- 01:07:05.210 --> 01:07:07.910 align:middle line:90% acquire it kind of immediately. 01:07:07.910 --> 01:07:11.890 align:middle line:84% It's not something that takes them a while. 01:07:11.890 --> 01:07:13.600 align:middle line:90% Other questions? 01:07:13.600 --> 01:07:15.210 align:middle line:90% Children are very smart. 01:07:15.210 --> 01:07:18.040 align:middle line:84% This is one of the big results of language acquisition 01:07:18.040 --> 01:07:18.550 align:middle line:90% research. 01:07:18.550 --> 01:07:22.130 align:middle line:84% They know things before you would think they do. 01:07:22.130 --> 01:07:27.050 align:middle line:90% OK, let's see where we are. 01:07:27.050 --> 01:07:29.377 align:middle line:90% Yeah, that's where we are. 01:07:29.377 --> 01:07:31.710 align:middle line:84% Yep, so we'll never be able to predict which "k"s change 01:07:31.710 --> 01:07:32.910 align:middle line:90% to "g" in the plural. 01:07:32.910 --> 01:07:36.480 align:middle line:84% So what we'll do is posit these underlying forms over there 01:07:36.480 --> 01:07:39.000 align:middle line:84% on the right, some ending in "k," others ending in "g," 01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:40.890 align:middle line:84% and then we'll have a rule, "g" becomes 01:07:40.890 --> 01:07:43.770 align:middle line:90% "k" at the end of a word. 01:07:43.770 --> 01:07:45.558 align:middle line:90% And given, the time. 01:07:45.558 --> 01:07:47.100 align:middle line:84% I think this is a good place to stop. 01:07:47.100 --> 01:07:48.615 align:middle line:90% Are there any questions? 01:07:48.615 --> 01:07:49.115 align:middle line:90% Yes? 01:07:49.115 --> 01:07:53.730 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] is there any [INAUDIBLE]?? 01:07:53.730 --> 01:07:56.610 align:middle line:90% 01:07:56.610 --> 01:07:57.443 align:middle line:90% Or like [INAUDIBLE]? 01:07:57.443 --> 01:07:58.735 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: You know what? 01:07:58.735 --> 01:08:00.650 align:middle line:84% Let's talk about that when we do phonology 01:08:00.650 --> 01:08:01.650 align:middle line:90% a little more carefully. 01:08:01.650 --> 01:08:04.770 align:middle line:84% Because yes, this change from "g" to "k," you're right, 01:08:04.770 --> 01:08:06.228 align:middle line:84% it's part of a more general change. 01:08:06.228 --> 01:08:08.187 align:middle line:84% There are lots of things like this that happen. 01:08:08.187 --> 01:08:09.490 align:middle line:90% And it's a very common change. 01:08:09.490 --> 01:08:11.990 align:middle line:84% So we'll try to talk more about it as we get closer to that. 01:08:11.990 --> 01:08:14.140 align:middle line:90% Good question. 01:08:14.140 --> 01:08:17.550 align:middle line:84% So again, problem set due today, interpreted generously. 01:08:17.550 --> 01:08:18.493 align:middle line:90% It's due by dawn. 01:08:18.493 --> 01:08:20.160 align:middle line:84% And I'll try to put up a new problem set 01:08:20.160 --> 01:08:22.400 align:middle line:90% before today is over. 01:08:22.400 --> 01:08:27.000 align:middle line:90%