Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!bob
From: bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Underlying Structure of Words
Message-ID: <406@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 16:06:54 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.406
Posted: Wed Feb 13 16:06:54 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 04:42:15 EST
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 18

Has anybody ever considered the syntactic structure of words?

For example, since the term "unemployable" is taken to mean
"unable to be employed" rather than "able to be unemployed,"
the word must have an underlying structure of (un(employ able))
rather than ((un employ) able).

"-able" is more tightly bound to "employ" than "un-" is. Is this
because "employable" is a word and "unemploy" is not? (Or is it?)

Has anyone done any thinking on this? I haven't, It just occurred to
me recently while wishing to be "unemployable" in the second, less 
common sense.
-- 
Bob Kaplan

"All the clouds turn to words.  All the words float in sequence.
 No one knows what they mean.  Everyone just ignores them."