• Are the two featured categorizations correct?
They do look correct, from my point of view. Unfortunately, you haven't mentioned whose exactly point of view you would like your categorizations to be judged from. Let's hope somebody else here can guess that.
• Why aren't class-changing affixes regarded as inflectional affixes?
Here I will speak about the ...
This is a common issue in Austronesian linguistics where the notion of precategorial (=functionally unspecified) roots is often employed to explain the fact that roots don't have a POS category until they're employed in an utterance, and then the same root can be used in many different POS categories. This may match the situation you describe, where the root ...
Yes, some linguists consider this possible. Here are some such concepts/authors:
Pesetsky, David. 1995.Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades (CurrentStudies in Linguistics 27). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense Volume I. Online:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001.
Your hypothesis is true, partially. Tamil employs agglutinative grammar. Suffixes may be used to mark noun class, number, case, verb tense and other grammatical categories.
Wikipedia has a great example of agglutination in Tamil.
The only place where I would differ from your hypothesis is that all words by themselves would belong to some 'category' as you ...
there is some confusion in the other answers to this question. let me be clear: on any understanding of the term "complementizer," the word for is indeed a complementizer in the context you give. for heads a non-finite CP. allow me to give a sense of the sheer enormity of evidence pointing in this direction.
the main thrust of the evidence is in ...
That "for" is a complementizer. If it were a preposition, it would take an object which could be pronominalized with "it" or "that", but *"John won't stay though I'd prefer for it". On the other hand, when it is a complementizer, pronominalization of the entire nominalized construction may be possible: "John won't stay, though I'd prefer that."
I personally would say that it is not a complementizer.
For instance, if we compare the sentences:
(1) Mark prefers for John to stay
(2) John prefers to stay
I personally want to think of (1) and (2) as having the complement clause to be about the same, because they are both "(for John) to stay" but (2) has the John implied because it is ...
A grammatical category of a language is a non-terminal symbol of a context free grammar of the language. A morphological category is a non-terminal which appears on the left of a phrase structure rule of the grammar which does not have any non-terminals on its right hand side.