Inhaltszusammenfassung

Grammar books still assume that the choice between the synthetic comparative form (e.g. prouder) and its analytic variant (e.g. more important) is largely constrained by the number of syllables and the nature of the final segment. There is general consent in the literature that trisyllabic words take the historically more recent more com¬parative, while monosyllables take -er variants, with disyllabic words being subject to variation. The situation proves to be considerably more complex. W...Grammar books still assume that the choice between the synthetic comparative form (e.g. prouder) and its analytic variant (e.g. more important) is largely constrained by the number of syllables and the nature of the final segment. There is general consent in the literature that trisyllabic words take the historically more recent more com¬parative, while monosyllables take -er variants, with disyllabic words being subject to variation. The situation proves to be considerably more complex. While the generalization that trisyllabic adjectives take the analytic comparative is largely accurate (the most notable exception being prefixed trisyllables such as unhappier, unluckier), the alleged synthetic comparative formation for monosyllables and certain disyllables needs to be reconsidered. The proposed paper presents data showing that the degree of simplification (as it is necessarily required in usage grammars) distorts the actual situation. It also makes suggestions for a reformulation of rules and generalizations pertaining to the choice of comparative form. » weiterlesen» einklappen

Autoren

Klassifikation

DFG Fachgebiet:
Sprachwissenschaften

DDC Sachgruppe:
Englisch