ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/03/85)
>> > > pooh'-pooh' A reduplication of pooh. >Webster's 9th Collegiate (.. ) defines the prefix "re-" as ":again :anew" >It defines duplication as "copying or repeating" (...) >so, re + duplication = again copying > >which obviously means there must be three or more, right :-) !! >(original, first copy, reduplicated (3rd+) copy) >I guess reduplication joins the ranks of words that don't mean what they say. > >It is left to the connoisseur to check the dictionary meaning. >-- >Suzanne Barnett Frequently Latin and Greek prefixes undergo semantic limitation or mutilation upon entering the class of living English word building formatives. This is quite common among prefixes: e/ex- In Latin, meant (from/away from/out of/out), as in `eject' (throw out), `exclaim' (speak out), now it means (former) as in `ex-president', `ex-wife', &c. meta- In Greek, meant (change into/across/among/along with/following/ backwards), as in `metaphysics' (the book FOLLOWING Aristotle's physics), `metathesis' (change in positions), now it means (hyper-), `meta-theorem', `meta-language', if you accept all those MIT-and-Hofstedter-isms. re- In Latin, meant (back to the beginning/backwards/back/again), as in `return' (turn back to the beginning), `replace' (put back), `repel' (drive back), currently believed to mean only (again), in spite of all the evidence. Some swell words: `re-enthuse', `re-cocacolanize', `re-televise', `re-nice'... Apparently, Webster's 9th dictionary is doing little to correct such injustices. `Reduplication' goes way back, and is, as most of Latin's grammatical terms, a literal translation of a Greek term: anadiploun {ana-diplo-ein} = to reduplicate, where `ana-', which has many meanings, here probably means (back to the beginning). `diploun' means (to duplicate), as in `diploid'. I can only speculate at this point why the prefix (ana-) was felt essential by those who coined this word. Reduplication in the IndoEuropean languages does NOT involve duplication of the entire word, as in `pooh-pooh'. It is the duplication of the FIRST SOUND in the word, and was the standard method for forming the perfect tense in all IndoEuropean languages, as below: PRESENT PERFECT Greek leipo: (I leave) le-loipa (I have left) Latin pello: (I drive out) pe-puli: (I have driven out) Old Irish braigim (I fart) be-brag (I have farted) IndoEur. *XeYo: (I XeY) *XeXoYa (I have XeY-ed) Anyway, the only regular use for reduplication in Ancient Greek was as above -- a copy of the initial consonant of the word is prefixed to the beginning of the word (in Latin the phenomenon is restricted to a small number of irregular verbs). Perhaps the fact that duplication is `thrown back' to the beginning, rather than a total duplication, is why the inventors of this word felt the need for the prefix (ana-)/(re-). Naturally enough, when modern linguists encountered such phenomena as in Chinese: To'ngzhi`men do~u ga~o-gao-xi`ng-xing-de go~ngzuo`. comrades all very-very-glad-glad work (All comrades work very gladly) ...they called it `reduplication' of the modifier ga~o-xi'ng. Bekos! -michael
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/03/85)
Sorry, the 1st-pass translation of the Chinese should read: > > To'ngzhi`men do~u ga~o-gao-xi`ng-xing-de go~ngzuo`. > comrades all glad-glad work > instead of: > comrades all very-very-glad-glad work ..where "ga~oxi`ng" (glad), being duplicated, means (very glad). -michael
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (04/05/85)
> > To'ngzhi`men do~u ga~o-gao-xi`ng-xing-de go~ngzuo`. > > comrades all glad-glad work > > ..where "ga~oxi`ng" (glad), being duplicated, means (very glad). Hmm. Seems to me that I remember that a characteristic of a number of Pacific pidgins is the frequent use of reduplication, especially for things like this. I wonder if it's safe to assume that they got it from Chinese? I know that various pidgins based on Chinese were among the first to appear in the Pacific, and had an influence on later pidgins in other areas. I wish I knew of some specific examples, but the only ones I can dredge from the murky fathoms of my memory are probably not to be trusted. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle --- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally
mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (04/07/85)
Hmm, I think its more likely that the pigens and the chinese have similar origins for the use of reduplication for emphasis. And that because it is a natural expression of language. Afterall, children do it all the time. (It was a big bus, a big, big, BIG bus...) -- Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh)
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/07/85)
>Hmm. Seems to me that I remember that a characteristic of a number of >Pacific pidgins is the frequent use of reduplication, especially for things >like this. I wonder if it's safe to assume that they got it from Chinese? >I know that various pidgins based on Chinese were among the first to appear >in the Pacific, and had an influence on later pidgins in other areas. Why should it be safe to assume it comes from Chinese. English is fond of it, too. ``It's a long long way to Tipperary.'' ``Don't be such a goody goody'' and so forth. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/08/85)
>Hmm. Seems to me that I remember that a characteristic of a number of >Pacific pidgins is the frequent use of reduplication, especially for things >like this. I wonder if it's safe to assume that they got it from Chinese? >I know that various pidgins based on Chinese were among the first to appear >in the Pacific, and had an influence on later pidgins in other areas. Many Pacific languages use reduplication in the plural forms for adjectives, as below: Tagalog: malaki (big) => malalaki (big ones) {ma- is a prefix} Fijian: na vale levu => na veivale lelevu the house big the houses big na tagane vinaka => na tagane vivinaka the man good the men good Tongan: e fale lahi => e ngaahi fale lalahi the house big the houses big Samoan: le tama:loa malosi => tama:loa malolosi the man strong men strong le fafine umi => ni fafine u:mi {redup. via vowel length} the woman tall the women tall Tahitian: te fare rahi => te mau fare rarahi the house big the houses big Indonesian occasionally forms noun plurals with reduplication, as below (our word `orangutan' derives from this word): Indonesian: orang (person) => orang-orang (people) I believe that none of these languages are pidgins. My bet is that all the above languages are related, since there is a unusual amount of correlation in many vocabulary items: Fijian Tongan Samoan Tahitian Indon. Tagalog big levu lahi tele: rahi - (ma)laki body - sino tino tino - - clean - ma'a mama: ma: - - drink gunu inu meainu inu minum (um)i(i)nom eye mata mata mata mata mata mata god `otou atua atua tuhan - head ulu 'ulu ulu upa'o - ulo house vale fale fale fare - - leg yava va'e vae 'a:vae - - live - nofo nofo noho - - new vou fo'ou fou - baru bago no bogi po: po: po: - - oyster civa tofe tio tio - - prawn ura - u:la 'oura udang ulang sleep moce mohe moe - - - soft malumu molu: malu: maru: lambek (ma)lambot star - fetu'u fetu: feti'a bintang bituin they ratou - la:tou ra:tou - - to ki ki 'i 'i ke sa water wai vai vai - - - where? -vei -fe: -fea -hea - - wind cagi matangi matagi mata'i angin hangin yesterday nanoa 'aneafi ananafi ina:nahi - - Furthermore, the pronominal systems express similar distinctions: I au ou,ku 'ou vau saya ako you(1) iko ke e 'oe engkau ka he,she,it o koya ne na 'oia dia siya I+you(2) daru ma ta ta:ua - - I+they(2) keirau ta ma ma:ua - - you+they(2) o drau mo lua 'o:rua - - they(2) rau na la ra:ua - - I+you(+they) da mau tatou ta:tou kita tayo I+they kaimami tau matou ma:tou kami kami you+they o ni mou tou 'outou enkau kayo they ra nau latou ra:tou dia sila I believe many Native American languages have pronominal systems that similarly distinguish all combinations of {I,you,other}. Does anyone know about the relatedness of the languages in the Pacific and of the Native Americans? Getting back to reduplication, perhaps somebody is familiar with any African languages. Does anybody know whether reduplication is used with them? It seems natural enough that the feature would be used to express plurality or intensification. IndoEuropean's use, for forming perfect tenses, seems somewhat nonintuitive. Perhaps that's why reduplication has disappeared in every modern IndoEuropean language I am familiar with. All this is idle speculation of course.. -michael
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (04/16/85)
> > > To'ngzhi`men do~u ga~o-gao-xi`ng-xing-de go~ngzuo`. > > > comrades all glad-glad work > > > ..where "ga~oxi`ng" (glad), being duplicated, means (very glad). > --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") Hmmm, at first I didn't understand it - it looks so much more readable as: / \ - - \ - \ Tongzhimen dou gaogao xingxingde gongzuo. (With - for 1st tone, the ~ is too reminescent of 3rd tone - I use v.) No, actually the sole reason for this note is that once after a Chinese joke I got a letter from someone who was confusing 1) Cantonese with Mandarin, and 2) Pinyin - which is the official Chinese Transliteration with Pidgin, which I'm not even sure what that would be as far as the above goes. I don't think the mistake was made in the above instance. I just wanted to clear that up. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner What do you expect? Watermelons are out of season!