1982
DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1982.1.3.345
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dutch Diminutive Formation as a Rime-Bound Process

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1991
1991
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
(1 reference statement)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggests that diminutive formation is dependent upon the presence of a count feature in a noun, although it is probably not the only relevant factor. Consider the examples below which contain various kinds of N 1 s. There is a QN boel`lot' in (7a) The suffix -rye is spelled out differently, which depends, for instance, upon the number of syllables, and the ending of the word the suffix is attached to, e.g., the diminutive form of the noun bloem`flower' is btoempje`flower-DIM' and the diminutive form of koning`king' is koninkje`king-DIM' (cf Trommelen 1981). For further discussion, see De Haas and Trommelen (1993) and the references cited therein.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This suggests that diminutive formation is dependent upon the presence of a count feature in a noun, although it is probably not the only relevant factor. Consider the examples below which contain various kinds of N 1 s. There is a QN boel`lot' in (7a) The suffix -rye is spelled out differently, which depends, for instance, upon the number of syllables, and the ending of the word the suffix is attached to, e.g., the diminutive form of the noun bloem`flower' is btoempje`flower-DIM' and the diminutive form of koning`king' is koninkje`king-DIM' (cf Trommelen 1981). For further discussion, see De Haas and Trommelen (1993) and the references cited therein.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%