Holes in Linguistic Paradigms

wb 110209 Wed 1140

Whence the various holes in linguistic paradigms? Why just these holes? Random genesis? Linguistic drift? Other historical process? Something else?

I II III IV V VI
*anagraphy *anagraphic *anagraph anagram 0001 1
*graphy graphic graph *gram 0110 2
*phonography phonographic phonograph *phonogram 0110 2
biography biographic *biograph *biogram 1100 2
geography geographic *geograph *geogram 1100 2
cartography cartographic *cartograph *cartogram 1100 2
demography demographic *demograph *demogram 1100 2
pornography pornographic *pornograph *pornogram 1100 2
*monography ?monographic monograph monogram 0?11 2.5
?polygraphy polygraphic polygraph *polygram ?110 2.5
caligraphy caligraphic ?caligraph *caligram 11?0 2.5
mammography mammographic *mammograph mammogram 1101 3
mimeography mimeographic mimeograph *mimeogram 1110 3
photography photographic photograph *photogram 1110 3
tomography tomographic ?tomograph tomogram 11?1 3.5
serigraphy serigraphic serigraph ?serigram 111? 3.5
spectrography spectrographic spectrograph ?spectrogram 111? 3.5
epigraphy epigraphic epigraph epigram 1111 4
sonography sonographic sonograph sonogram 1111 4
telegraphy telegraphic telegraph telegram 1111 4

The 0/?/* tags are based not on formal lexicography (ha! another 1100, seems to be the commonest type), but on my own somewhat dubious judgements of oral American usage.

The -ic form seems to be the most often present. An exercise for the reader: add the -er form.

No comments:

Post a Comment