Gram - SEAS

66 3 Mechanisms: reanalysis an.d an.alogy
III. The word pas was reanalyzed as a negator particle in a structure of the
type lie Vlllovelllent (pas).
IV. Pas was extended analogically to new verbs having nothing to do with
movement; i.e., the structure was now lie V (pas):
(29) II ne suit pas.
he not knows not
'He doesn't know. '
V. The particle pas was reanalyzed as an obligatory concomitant of lie for
general negation: lie V pas.
VI. In the spoken vernacular pas came to replace lie via two stages: (lie) V pas
(reanalysis of lie as optional), V pas (reanalysis by loss of lie), resulting
in:
(30) II suit pas.
he knows not
'He doesn't know. '
In the case of the French negator pas, we would not know that reanalysis had taken
place at stage III without the evidence of the working of generalization at stage IV
The reanalysis at stage VI would not have been possible without the generalization,
since pas would have been too constrained by its original semantics of 'step.'
Although analogy is best viewed as generalization of a rule or construction, in
practice it is often useful to maintain the term "analogy" when referring to certain
local surface developments. For example, Mikola (1975: 170-2) describes the
development in Samoyedic (Uralic) oflocative postpositions out of older locational
nouns, which were themselves preceded by a noun in the genitive, as in:
(3 1 ) Proto-Samoyedic *miito-n + in
tent-GEN + top
'the top of the tent'
The suffixed -1/ of the Uralic genitive came to be reanalyzed as an initial consonant
on certain postpositions which were being grammaticalized out of nouns with
meanings such as 'upper surface':
(32) mUlo + nin
tent + 01110
'onto the tent"
This change began as a typical case of reanalysis of morpheme boundaries:
[mato-#n##in] > [mato-##nin]. The reanalysis in turn yielded entire families of
postpositions with an initial 11-, the cognates of which may have initial vowels in
other Uralic languages. We may speak of the generalization of 1/- here, but it is not