Abstract
Baerman (2012) suggests that noun inflection in Latvian presents a problem for Carstairs-McCarthy’s (1994) No Blur Principle, a successor to the Paradigm Economy Hypothesis (Carstairs 1983; 1987; Carstairs-McCarthy 2010). On closer examination, however, this turns out not to be so. Some other languages (such as Nuer) do appear to violate the No Blur Principle. However, when one takes into account the relationship between affixal inflection and stem alternation patterns, Latvian emerges as perfectly compliant. The discussion involves the distinction between patterns of stem alternation that have traditional morphosyntactic functions (such a signalling ‘plural’) and ones that are ‘morphomic’ (Aronoff 1994). The role of thematic vowels and the location of stem-affix boundaries are also relevant.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
