*ABA revisited: Evidence from Czech and Latin degree morphology

Abstract

We present a novel account of root suppletion in comparatives and superlatives, and show how it accounts for the presence of ABB and ABC patterns, as well as the absence of ABA patterns. The account assumes that suppletive roots, despite appearances to the contrary, are not contextual allomorphs, but portmanteaus spelling out two distinct features, one belonging to the lexical root, and another one belonging to the comparative. The regular comparative affix then spells out an additional feature relating to the comparative domain. In other words, we show that the comparative (cmpr) head that enters into the morphological makeup of the comparative (Bobaljik 2012) is to be split up into two distinct heads, C1 and C2 (see also Caha 2016). We extend this idea to sprl, which we show is likewise to be split up into S1 and S2, in order to account for suppletive ABC patterns. These four distinct heads receive empirical support from facts of the degree morphology in Czech and Latin. The new account of root suppletion allows a straightforward way of deriving the attested and unattested patterns of (root) suppletion in degree comparison. The analysis developed supports the hypothesis that the absence of AAB patterns in degree comparison is due to a constraint of a different nature altogether.

The Fine Structure of the Comparative

“…'thin'), the root is just a cranberry morpheme and does not exist independently of the adjectival context. Such morphologically complex positives require that we split up the positive-degree A into a root feature and a functional head Q, which we take to be a head that contributes gradability (Bresnan 1973;Corver 1997;De Clercq 2013;De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd 2017). This makes enough space in the positive degree (corresponding now to a constituent dominated by Q) for both the root and the -k, as shown in (32).…”

Complex copula systems as suppletive allomorphy

“…In this system, there is a split between stage-level predication and all other subtypes. I must leave it to future research to discover whether the apparent absence of (80) An important subtradition in work on syncretism identifies a recurring typological gap dubbed the *ABA Generalization (see in particular Caha 2009;Bobaljik 2012;Smith et al 2016;Bobaljik & Sauerland 2017;De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd 2017). Bobaljik & Sauerland (2017) give the following general definition of this effect:…”

Suppletion and morpheme order: Are words special?

“…Under the assumption that each of these morphemes corresponds to a terminal node, there are too few CMPR terminals in (1b) above to accommodate such examples. Hence, in Bulgarian, one more comparative terminal must be present (see also Caha 2017, De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd 2017. It may be objected that such data do not directly force the presence of two separate projections: One of the morphemes (e.g.…”

“…If this analysis is correct, the question whether we actually need rules for secondary exponence re-surfaces once again. See also De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd (2017) for a split CMPR proposal.…”

“…[9] For more details and implications of the decomposed model for English, see Caha (2017) and also De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd (2017). (33) The positive root mnogo 'many' can then be analyzed as the spell-out for ADJ.…”