|
|
we've been discussing the inflected comparative "solider", on which
there is fairly general agreement that (despite what many dictionaries
say) the periphrastic comparative "more solid" is preferable.
the background fact is that the phonological makeup of adjective stems
plays a considerable role in whether a particular adjective can have
an inflected comparative. there are some strong preferences and
tendencies in this area, but also a number of cases in which
non-phonological considerations play a role, and there is much
variation.
the fact that "solid" does not usually have a comparative in "-er" is
actually a piece of a larger generalization: adjectives with stems
ending in an unaccented neutral vowel + d (usually spelled "-id") --
solid, pallid, horrid, candid, liquid, etc. -- are all unhappy in the
inflected comparative (as are adjectives with stems ending in an
unaccented neutral vowel + k (usually spelled "-ic")).
the question is what the nature of this larger generalization is: is
it just a fact about *comparatives*, or are forms like "solider"
violations of some phonotactic constraint?
another background fact: there are unquestionably constraints on
inflected comparatives that are just about comparatives and not about
phonological well-formedness. one famous example is that of manner
adverbs in "-ly", which systematically lack inflected comparatives:
*"quicklier" etc. as soon as we see that adjectives in "-ly"
generally allow inflected comparatives ("friendlier", "manlier",
"homelier", etc.), we see that the problem is very specific and not a
matter of "-lier" somehow being phonologically ill-formed.
back to ??"solider" and its fellows: if the problem here is specific
to comparatives, then we should be able to invent words in "-ider"
(agentive/instrumental nouns, proper names, product names, etc.) that
don't sound ill-formed; i did that in an earlier posting. we should
also be able to find actual words of similar phonological makeup that
are just fine; i did that, too, in earlier postings.
if we're very lucky, we'll find actual words with the relevant subpart
(here, words ending in unaccented neutral vowel + d + schwa-r or
syllabic r, spelled with -"ider" or "-ader" or "-eder" or -"odor").
but this would be a matter of luck; with a template this specific,
we're likely to run into accidental gaps in the lexicon. accidental
lexical gaps are all over the place, and they are distributed
essentially at random. an example drawn from thousands of
possibilities: english has words "brace", "grace", and "trace", but no
"drace". the existence of the first three should in no way lead
us to expect to find the fourth. the question is whether "drace" is a
*possible* word of english -- and it is. "Drace" is a possible family
name, for instance, or a possible product name.
in fact, it turns out that Drace is an actually attested family name,
just not a very common one.
in this vein, i started a wider search for words satisfying the
template above. actually, i made the template more demanding, closer
to "solider":
l + unaccented neutral vowel + d + schwa-r or syllabic r
right off the bat, i hit pay dirt: "ballader" 'ballad singer' (with
accent on the first syllable) in the OED (though not, apparently,
shorter dictionaries) and with a fair number of webhits.
and then a pile of attested proper names, like Callider, Dillider,
Millider, Follider. and, in fact, Sollider: a Sylvester Sollider in
19th century pennsylvania, and a John Sollider and Susan Sollider in
19th century new york. not a very common name, to be sure, but in
no way phonologically problematic.
arnold
|
|