| Name |
ABLE-/IBLE-ADJECTIVE CONSTRUCTION
|
| Semantic function of cxn |
1 Expressing a DESCRIPTIVE QUALITY with respect to a particular featue or aspect2 Expressing a DESCRIPTIVE QUALITY with respect to being worthy of an action expressed by the base |
| Slots |
1 (base) |
2 (suffix) |
| Semantic role of slots |
FEATURE / ASPECT UNDER WHICH A THING IS SEEN |
DESCRIPTIVE QUALITY |
| Syntactic form |
nounverb(fragment) |
-able/-ible /əbl/ |
| Example |
| Examples of bases and the corresponding suffixations: | | remark | →
← | remarkable | | | access | accessible | stress shift | response
sense | responsible
sensible | word-final <e> in base but not in word formation | horror
terror
vision | horrible
terrible
visible | loss of ending of base | consider
accept
suit | considerable
acceptable
suitable | | | rely | | reliable | <y> – <i> | | desire | | desirable | word-final <e> in base but not in word-formaation |
An analysis in terms of a root morpheme (cred, poss) and a suffix -ity or -ibility seems possible. However, from a cognitive point of view it is not particularly convincing to assume that speakers store units such as poss in their mental constructiCons. Rather, we consider it more likely that the adjectival pattern and the nominal pattern reinforce each other in the minds of speakers, which is why we list them here as parallel constructions.
Since it is rather likely that fragments on which the construction is based may also arise from longer words that involve more than one affix, we indicate some such parallels here: | (creed)
(elect)
(intellect)
(capacity) | →
← | (im)possible
(in)credible
(in)eligible
(un)intelligible
capable
etc | →
← | (im)possibility
(in)credibility
(in)eligibility
(un)intelligibllity
capability
etc. |
|
| General cxn-type |
word formation cxn: morphological
suffixation: nominalization
|
| Literature |
Schmid 2011: 175, 202–204 |