4

To say that John ate something, you say John ate (something), and it's always grammatical. To talk about the state or time of filling some role, you append -hood or -ship, as in womanhood, but for most roles this method fails. Is there a name for this (or have I identified a salient distinction at all)?

7

For affixes in particular, you can talk about how productive they are. So for instance, -er is highly productive — you can add it to just about any verb — and -ship is much less productive.

Some affixes have become entirely unproductive: for instance, we've got a few leftover plurals in -en, like oxen and children, but you can't coin new ones (except as a joke).

With syntactic constructions, it turns out that most are pretty productive. (Though I guess you could argue that old frozen phrases — like "hallowed be thy name" or "o'er the ramparts we watched" — represent unproductive constructions.) The restrictions you do see on syntactic constructions tend to be mostly about semantics and not grammar. For instance, you can persuade a person of something, but you can't persuade a rock of anything. Still, the sentence "I persuaded that rock to get out of my way" is perfectly grammatical — it's just that if you take it literally, it doesn't make any sense.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.