The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2017 Fund Drive (
Ask Your Question

I want to know the meaning of “today's morphology is yesterday's syntax

asked 2015-07-07 18:58:33 -0400

kujirazame gravatar image

updated 2015-07-11 00:12:23 -0400

usagi5886 gravatar image

I want to ask Thomas Givon's aphorism “today's morphology is yesterday's syntax.

In my country, there is a little information about his aphorism.

I suppose this aphorism relates to historical linguistics.

For example, English phrase “all be it” and “on to” changed “albeit” and “onto” according to Wikipedia.

I guess yesterday’s syntactical of “all be it” and “on to” changed “albeit” and “onto” of today’s morpheme .

Is that right? If my answer is wrong, would you please correct it

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

1 answer

Sort by » oldest newest most voted

answered 2015-07-11 00:27:20 -0400

usagi5886 gravatar image

updated 2015-07-11 00:28:15 -0400

I guess yesterday’s syntactical of “all be it” and “on to” changed “albeit” and “onto” of today’s morpheme .

That's right. The insight behind the quote is that, over time, what used to be a normal construction created through productive syntactic rules eventually can become 'crystallized' into a single word or morpheme.

A good example is gonna. I quote the following from its Wikipedia page:

The going-to future originated by the extension of the spatial sense of the verb go to a temporal sense (a common change – the same phenomenon can be seen in the preposition before). The original construction involved physical movement with an intention, such as "I am going [outside] to harvest the crop." The location later became unnecessary, and the expression was reinterpreted to represent a near future.

This shows how gonna was originally a normal syntactic construction (be + VERB-ing + to). In contrast, in modern colloquial English, gonna patterns (in certain ways) as if it were a single word.

edit flag offensive delete link more
Login/Signup to Answer

Question Tools



Asked: 2015-07-07 18:58:33 -0400

Seen: 1,601 times

Last updated: Jul 11 '15