Misplaced Pages

#574425

45-483: However, Sanskrit, especially in the later stages of the language, significantly expands on this both in terms of the number of elements making up a single compound and the volume of compound-usage in the literature, a development which is unique within Indo-European to Sanskrit and closely related languages. Further, this development in the later language is an entirely artificial, literary construct and does not reflect

90-479: A nañ-tatpuruṣa compound, the first element is a privative , a negator: a- , an- or na- , just like the English un- , Latin-derived in-, non- or Greek-derived a-, an- . These are composed of a second member that occurs only in a compound and cannot stand on its own. These are either roots or verbal derivatives from them. In an aluk-tatpuruṣa compound, in contrast to the standard pattern of being in stem form,

135-527: A predicate verb phrase (VP) was exocentric: Since the whole is unlike either of its parts, it is exocentric. In other words, since the whole is neither a noun (N) like Hannibal nor a verb phrase (VP) like destroyed Rome but rather a sentence (S), it is exocentric. With the advent of X-bar theory in Transformational Grammar in the 1970s, this traditional exocentric division was largely abandoned and replaced by an endocentric analysis, whereby

180-466: A block'), or the English surname Longbottom ('one who lives in a long "botham" [valley]'). The second element could essentially have been a noun, which within such a compound, can take on adjective declensions with the compound used adjectivally. Endocentric compounds can thus be transformed into possessives, normally accompanied, and explicitly recognized in the older language, by a change in accentuation: A few typical examples of such compounds: When

225-437: A different role. Exocentricity is used in the treatment of non-configurational languages . As constraint-based models such as LFG do not represent a "deep structure" at which non-configurational languages can be treated as configurational, the exocentric S is used to formally represent the flat structure inherent in a non-configurational language. Hence, in a constraints-based analysis of Warlpiri , an exocentric structure follows

270-476: A distinction is made between endocentric and exocentric constructions. A grammatical construction (for instance, a phrase or compound ) is said to be endocentric if it fulfils the same linguistic function as one of its parts, and exocentric if it does not. The distinction reaches back at least to Bloomfield 's work of the 1930s, who based it on terms by Pāṇini and Patañjali in Sanskrit grammar . Such

315-401: A distinction is possible only in phrase structure grammars (constituency grammars), since in dependency grammars all constructions are necessarily endocentric. An endocentric construction consists of an obligatory head and one or more dependents, whose presence serves to modify the meaning of the head. For example: These phrases are indisputably endocentric. They are endocentric because

360-456: A few examples of the exocentric compounds in Chinese. The Warlpiri language is widely held as the canonical example of a non-configurational language . As such, Warlpiri sentences exhibit exceptionally flat surface structure. If a non-derivational approach is taken to syntactic structure, this can best be formalised with exocentric S dominated by the auxiliary in I. Thus, an example analysis of

405-411: A guideline for deciding whether a multi-headed structure should be viewed as endo- or exocentric. Coordinate structures thus remain a problem area for the endo- vs. exocentric distinction in general. Grammatical modifier In linguistics , a modifier is an optional element in phrase structure or clause structure which modifies the meaning of another element in the structure. For instance,

450-425: A language determines which morpho-syntactic forms are used for which function, as it varies from language to language. The functions of modification can be grouped into five such types: Sometimes it is not clear which element of the sentence a modifier is intended to modify. In many cases this is not important, but in some cases it can lead to genuine ambiguity . For example: Here the participial phrase sitting on

495-507: A modifier can be separated from its head by other modifiers, making the phrase discontinuous , as in The man here whom you bumped into in the street yesterday , where the relative clause whom...yesterday is separated from the word it modifies ( man ) by the modifier here . In some other languages, words other than modifiers may occur in between; this type of situation is especially likely in languages with free word order , and often agreement between

SECTION 10

#1732851100575

540-637: A modifier when used attributively , but not when used predicatively – compare the examples with the adjective red at the start of this article. Another type of modifier in some languages, including English, is the noun adjunct , which is a noun modifying another noun (or occasionally another part of speech). An example is land in the phrase land mines given above. Examples of the above types of modifiers, in English, are given below. In some cases, noun phrases or quantifiers can act as modifiers: Modifiers of all types of forms may be used for certain function with different semantic features. The grammar of

585-445: A number of modifiers, and these may include both premodifiers and postmodifiers. For example: In this noun phrase, man is the head, nice and tall are premodifiers, and from Canada and whom you met are postmodifiers. In English, simple adjectives are usually used as premodifiers, with occasional exceptions such as galore (which always appears after the noun, coming from Irish in which most adjectives are postmodifiers) or

630-443: A pragmatic rather than syntactic role in a constraints-based analysis of Warlpiri sentence structure. While exocentric structures have largely disappeared from most theoretical analyses of standard sentence structure, many theories of syntax still assume (something like) exocentric divisions for coordinate structures , e.g. The brackets each time mark the conjuncts of a coordinate structure, whereby this coordinate structure includes

675-407: Is an adjective. In more formal terms, the distribution of an endocentric construction is functionally equivalent, or approaching equivalence, to one of its parts, which serves as the center, or head, of the whole. An endocentric construction is also known as a headed construction, where the head is contained "inside" the construction. An exocentric construction consists of two or more parts, whereby

720-435: Is an exocentric compound consisting of a noun preceded by a grammatical modifier which, taken together, functions as a single nominalised adjective . A bahuvrīhi compound can often be translated by "possessing..." or "-ed"; for example, "possessing much rice" or "much-riced". In English, examples of bahuvrīhi would be "lowlife" and "blockhead" (they respectively denote 'one whose life is low' and 'one whose head resembles

765-431: Is illustrated here using the following trees. The first three trees show the distinction in a constituency-based grammar, and the second two trees show the same structures in a dependency-based grammar: The upper two trees on the left are endocentric since each time, one of the parts, i.e. the head, projects its category status up to the mother node. The upper tree on the right, in contrast, is exocentric, because neither of

810-412: Is not in an appropriate position to be associated with that modifier. This is often considered a grammatical or stylistic error. For example: Here whoever was "walking along the road" is not mentioned in the sentence, so the modifier ( walking along the road ) has nothing to modify, except a vulture , which is clearly not the intention. Such a case is called a "dangling modifier", or more specifically, in

855-516: Is possible in phrase structure grammars (= constituency grammars), since they are constituency-based. The distinction is hardly present in dependency grammars , since they are dependency-based. In other words, dependency-based structures are necessarily endocentric, i.e. they are necessarily headed structures. Dependency grammars by definition were much less capable of acknowledging the types of divisions that constituency enables. Acknowledging exocentric structure necessitates that one posit more nodes in

900-673: Is termed vigraha·vākya . Broadly, compounds can be divided into two classes: endocentric and exocentric . An endocentric compound, usually called determinative , is where the compound is essentially the sum of its parts, the meaning being an extension of one of the parts: An exocentric compound refers to something outside the components: Indeed, this term 'bahuvrihi' is used both in Sanskrit and standard Indo-European linguistics to denote this type of compound. Sanskrit expands on these to provide several further distinctions as below: In traditional Sanskrit grammar, compounds are divided into

945-405: Is viewed as the compound of multiple words. While not strictly copulative, this is a compound consisting of the same word repeated with the first occurrence accented. Āmreḍita compounds are used to express repetitiveness; for example, from dív- (day) we obtain divé-dive ('day after day', daily) and from devá- (god) we obtain deváṃ-devam or devó-devas ('deity after deity'). Bahuvrīhi

SECTION 20

#1732851100575

990-405: The adjective "red" acts as a modifier in the noun phrase "red ball", providing extra details about which particular ball is being referred to. Similarly, the adverb "quickly" acts as a modifier in the verb phrase "run quickly". Modification can be considered a high-level domain of the functions of language, on par with predication and reference . Modifiers may come either before or after

1035-464: The adjectives immemorial and martial in the phrases time immemorial and court martial (the latter comes from French , where most adjectives are postmodifiers). Sometimes placement of the adjective after the noun entails a change of meaning: compare a responsible person and the person responsible , or the proper town (the appropriate town) and the town proper (the area of the town as properly defined). In English (and other languages)

1080-404: The attributive member, six varieties of tatpuruṣa compounds are identified as seen in the classification above. A further distinction is also made based on whether the attributive is in the nominative or an oblique case. The first member here is an attributive in an oblique relationship with the second, and are therefore termed dependent determinatives . In a karmadhāraya-tatpuruṣa compound,

1125-500: The auxiliary, dominating all of the verb, arguments and adjuncts which are not raised to the specifier position of the IP: In addition, in theories of morphology , the distinction remains, since certain compounds seem to require an exocentric analysis, e.g. have-not in Bill is a have-not . For a class of compounds described as exocentric, see bahuvrihi . The endo- vs. exocentric distinction

1170-420: The composition of the compound's elements, and the meanings in English generally correspond to them, in most cases being a similar compound as well. Where this is not the case or the meaning is not clear, a further resolution is provided. A tatpuruṣa is an endocentric compound composed of two elements, wherein the first one, named the attributive , determines the second one. Based on the grammatical nature of

1215-584: The constituent structure of the Warlpiri sentence: Ngarrka-ngku man- ERG ka AUX wawirri kangaroo. ABS panti-rni spear- NPAST Ngarrka-ngku ka wawirri panti-rni man-ERG AUX kangaroo.ABS spear-NPAST 'the man is spearing the kangaroo' would be as follows: Where S is a non-projected exocentric structure which dominates both heads and phrases with equal weight. The elements in spec of IP and under S can be freely moved and switch places, as position in c-structure, except for I, plays

1260-565: The finite verb as the root of the entire tree, which means the initial exocentric division is impossible. This tree is entirely endocentric. The Chinese language is known for having rich compounds . Linguists often classify compound verbs in Chinese into five types: Subject-Predicate 主謂結構 (SP), Verb-Object 述賓結構 (VO), Verb-Complement 述補結構 (VC), Coordinative 並列結構 (VV), and Endocentric 偏正結構 . The Coordinative, Verb-Complement, and Endocentric types are also known as Parallel , Verb-Resultative , and Modifier-Head , respectively. Below are

1305-470: The first element of a bahuvrīhi is a numeral, the compound is called dvigu . An English example would be a halfwit ('one who has half of their mind'). A few typical examples of such compounds: Avyayībhāvas ('indeclinable') are adverbial compounds composed of an indeclinable element (an adverb, etc.) and a noun, together expressing an adverb or another indeclinable ( avyaya ) element. Endocentric and exocentric In theoretical linguistics ,

1350-501: The first element qualifies the second one adjectively when the latter is a noun. When the second member is an adjective, the qualification is adverbial. Other parts of speech besides adjectives and adverbs may be used to obtain the adjective or adverbial qualification. In essence dvigu can refer to several compound types where the first element is a numeral . Dvigu-tatpuruṣa compounds are a special subcategory of karmadhārayas . dvigu compounds of bahuvrīhi type are noted below. In

1395-474: The first element takes a case form as if in a sentence: These consist of two or more noun stems connected with "and" (copulative or co-ordinative). There are mainly three kinds of dvandva pair constructions in Sanskrit: The result of itaretara-dvandva is an enumerative word, the meaning of which refers to all its constituent members. The resultant compound word is in the dual or plural number and takes

Sanskrit compound - Misplaced Pages Continue

1440-427: The following main classes: The first two of these, tatpuruṣa and bahuvrīhi , are Indo-European inheritances, the latter two are Indic innovations. Alongside the term bahuvrīhi , tatpuruṣa has also been adopted in mainstream Indo-European linguistics as the technical term denoting this type of compounding. The following sections give an outline of the main types of compounds with examples. The examples demonstrate

1485-416: The gender of the final member in the compound construction. Examples: Words may be organised in a compound to form a metonym , and sometimes the words may comprise all the constituent parts of the whole. The resultant bears a collective sense and is always singular and neutral. Some Sanskrit grammarians identify a third kind of dvandva which they call ekaśeṣa-dvandva , where only one stem remains in what

1530-786: The grammatical gender, number or other feature of the modifier and its head is used to indicate the relationship. In English, modifiers may sometimes even be interposed between component words or syllables of the head, such as in split infinitives ( to boldly go ) or infixation , most commonly expletive infixation ( in-fucking-credible ). Two common parts of speech used for modification are adjectives (and adjectival phrases and adjectival clauses ), which modify nouns; and adverbs (and adverbial phrases and adverbial clauses ), which modify other parts of speech, particularly verbs, adjectives and other adverbs, as well as whole phrases or clauses. Not all adjectives and adverbs are necessarily modifiers, however; an adjective will normally be considered

1575-435: The initial binary division of the clause is exocentric (S → NP VP), as mentioned above, e.g. This tree structure contains four divisions, whereby only one of these divisions is exocentric (the highest one). The other three divisions are endocentric because the mother node has the same basic category status as one of its daughters. The one exocentric division disappears in the corresponding dependency tree: Dependency positions

1620-411: The material appearing between the left-most bracket and the right-most bracket; the coordinator is positioned between the conjuncts. Coordinate structures like these do not lend themselves to an endocentric analysis in any clear way, nor to an exocentric analysis. One might argue that the coordinator is the head of the coordinate structure, which would make it endocentric. This argument would have to ignore

1665-428: The modified element (the head ), depending on the type of modifier and the rules of syntax for the language in question. A modifier placed before the head is called a premodifier ; one placed after the head is called a postmodifier . For example, in land mines , the word land is a premodifier of mines , whereas in the phrase mines in wartime , the phrase in wartime is a postmodifier of mines . A head may have

1710-430: The numerous occurrences of coordinate structures that lack a coordinator ( asyndeton ), however. One might therefore argue instead that coordinate structures like these are multi-headed, each conjunct being or containing a head. The difficulty with this argument, however, is that the traditional endocentric vs. exocentric distinction did not foresee the existence of multi-headed structures, which means that it did not provide

1755-430: The one or the other of the parts cannot be viewed as providing the bulk of the semantic content of the whole. Further, the syntactic distribution of the whole cannot be viewed as being determined by the one or the other of the parts. The classic instance of an exocentric construction is the sentence (in a phrase structure grammar ). The traditional binary division of the sentence (S) into a subject noun phrase (NP) and

1800-432: The one word in each case carries the bulk of the semantic content and determines the syntactic category to which the whole constituent will be assigned. The phrase big house is a noun phrase in line with its part house , which is a noun. Similarly, sing songs is a verb phrase in line with its part sing , which is a verb. The same is true of very long ; it is an adjective phrase in line with its part long , which

1845-498: The parts projects its category status up to the mother node; Z is a category distinct from X or Y. The two dependency trees show the manner in which dependency-based structures are inherently endocentric. Since the number of nodes in the tree structure is necessarily equal to the number of elements (e.g. words) in the string, there is no way to assign the whole (i.e. XY) a category status that is distinct from both X and Y. Traditional phrase structure trees are mostly endocentric, although

Sanskrit compound - Misplaced Pages Continue

1890-562: The sentence is viewed as an inflection phrase (IP), which is essentially a projection of the verb (a fact that makes the sentence a big VP in a sense). Thus, with the advent of X-bar theory, the endocentric vs. exocentric distinction started to become less important in transformational theories of syntax, for without the concept of exocentricity, the notion of endocentricity was becoming vacuous. By contrast, in constraint-based syntactic theories , such as Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), exocentric constructions are still widely used, but with

1935-461: The spoken language. In Sanskrit, as in Proto-Indo-European, a compound is formed by the following process: In the later language, this process can be repeated recursively—in theory, ad infinitum, with the freshly made compound becoming the first element of a new one. The process of 'resolving' the compound, i.e., expounding the meaning using the component words declined as in sentence form

1980-399: The step may be intended to modify her (meaning that the painting's subject was sitting on the step), or it may be intended to modify the verb phrase painted her or the whole clause he painted her (or just he ), meaning in effect that it was the painter who was sitting on the step. Sometimes the element which the modifier is intended to modify does not in fact appear in the sentence, or

2025-539: The syntactic (or morphological) structure than one has actual words or morphs in the phrase or sentence at hand. What this means is that a significant tradition in the study of syntax and grammar has been incapable from the start of acknowledging the endo- vs. exocentric distinction, a fact that has generated confusion about what should count as an endo- or exocentric structure. Theories of syntax (and morphology) represent endocentric and exocentric structures using tree diagrams and specific labeling conventions. The distinction

#574425