Toadying 2: Derived nominalization
Some follow-ups to
"The vocabulary of toadying", including material
from my e-mail correspondents and some things that didn't make it into
the earlier posting because it was already awfully long:
- a difference in the syntax of
fellatio and
fellation that indicates that
fellation is not merely an
anglicized version of Latin
fellatio;
- still more words in the
fellat- family;
- possible insights into the mind of John Podhoretz;
- more toadying vocabulary, based on sexual
vocabulary, on the vocabulary of body services, and the vocabulary of
religious worship.
I'll take these topics up in separate postings. First,
fellatio vs.
fellation.
Correspondent E. notes
that my example of metaphorical
fellation
has "fellation of"
followed by a NP denoting the recipient -- "the non-stop fellation of
Brady and Belichick by Michaels" ("Michaels's non-stop fellation of
Brady and Belichick" would also have been possible) -- and that
"fellatio of" really wouldn't work here. In fact, E. writes, "I
can't think of a way to stick on a recipient of the action to the noun [
fellatio]." This is an astute
observation.
Fellation
and
fellatio are both nouns
denoting acts/events, but
fellation
has the syntax of most other English nouns in
-ation, which can be followed by a
preposition (most commonly
of)
plus a NP object of that preposition which denotes the person or thing
affected by the act or in the event, while
fellatio lacks this syntactic
possibility.
In fact, the noun
fellation
(but not
fellatio)
exemplifies a much-studied phenomenon in English morphosyntax, usually
labeled
DERIVED NOMINALIZATION (not a perfect name, by
any means, though the derivation of nouns from verbs is certainly part
of the story). To describe what's going on here, I'm going to
have to go through some fairly technical stuff, so if you want to avoid
this, here's the
conclusion:
fellation is
derived (in English) from the verb
fellate,
rather than being a simple anglicization of
fellatio (
fellatio being a Latin noun derived
from a Latin verb meaning 'to suck', but that fact isn't relevant in
English);
fellation has the
syntax of an act/event noun derived from a verb, and
fellatio does not.
Ok, into those deep and dark technical waters. We start with
verbs. Each verb is associated with a set of (
LEXICAL)
ARGUMENTS, which I'm going to indicate by numbers: 1 and
2 for what you probably want to think of as its subject and its direct
object (if it takes one), respectively. (Many verbs take other
arguments as well, but 1 and 2 will do for my purposes here.)
What kinds of arguments a verb takes is a fact about that verb as a
lexical item; it's a separate question how all this material gets put
together into phrases and clauses. As for
fellate, it's an "absolute
transitive" verb, taking not only a 1 but also, obligatorily (except in
special circumstances), a 2. An expression serving as its 1 denotes the cocksucker, and an
expression serving as its 2 denotes the guy getting blown.
Now to put these three parts (V, 1, and 2) together into larger
expressions. This is a matter of
SYNTACTIC FUNCTIONS
for the constituent parts. In the simplest sorts of clauses (
Tony fellated Joe), the 1 and 2
expressions serve as the SU (Subject) and DO (Direct Object) of the V,
respectively, which means (among many other things) that the 1 comes
first, followed by a VP consisting of the V followed by the 2.
There are (many) other ways to put the three parts together. In
passive clauses (
Joe was/got fellated
(
by Tony)), the 2 serves as SU
and the 1 is not obligatorily expressed -- but if it is it serves as an
OO (Oblique Object), marked by a preposition, in this case the
particular preposition
by.
In nominal gerunds (
Tony's fellating
Joe (
entertained their
roommates), (
The guys were
surprised at)
Tony's
fellating Joe), the 1 is not obligatorily expressed (
Fellating Joe (
pleases me), (
I'm enthusiastic about)
fellating Joe), but if it is it
serves as a (possessive) DET (Determiner) for the
-ing form of the V. And on
and on.
Some verbs have their 2 expressed as an OO rather than a DO; the
preposition marking the OO is one associated with the specific V:
adhere to,
rebel against,
flee from, etc.
Now: a great many verbs have related act/event nouns.
Morphologically, there are many V-N relations, depending on the V: the
N can be identical to the V (
capture-capture;
this is "conversion" or "zero derivation") or can have one of a number
of derivational suffixes, among them
-ance/-ence
(
disappear-disappearance,
adhere-adherence),
-al (
remove-removal),
-t (
flee-flight),
-ion (
rebell-rebellion,
donate-donation), and
-ation (
confirm-confirmation).
Finally, the really important, very cool, fact: the syntax of these
derived Ns is almost entirely predictable from the syntax of the Vs
they are based on. If it takes a 2, the 2 for the V serves as an
OO of the N, immediately following it. If the V is one that has
its 2 expressed as an OO via the preposition
P, then this
P marks the OO of the N (
adhere to - adherence to,
rebel against - rebellion against,
flee from - flight from);
otherwise, the OO of the N is marked by
of (
capture - capture of,
confirm -
confirmation of). If the V
doesn't take a 2 (is "lexically intransitive"), then the N has no
following object (
disappear -
disappearance). If the V has another argument in addition
to 1 and 2, or instead of 2, the N inherits it too (
remove X from Y - removal of X from Y,
donate X to Y - donation of X to Y).
Meanwhile, the 1 associated with the V is not obligatorily expressed;
if it is not expressed, the N is free to have the full range of
appropriate
determiners, including none (
the
capture of the enemy soldiers,
this
rebellion against authority,
donation
of money to the church), but if it is expressed, the 1 can serve
as a (possessive) determiner (
our
capture of the enemy soldiers,
the
students' rebellion against authority,
Margaret's donation of money to the church).
As in: "Michaels's non-stop fellation of
Brady and Belichick".
Another possibility for the expression of the 1 with a derived nominal
is as an OO marked by
by, as
in passive clauses:
the capture of
the enemy soldiers by our army,
a rebellion by students against authority,
donation of money to the
church by Margaret. As in: "the non-stop fellation of
Brady and Belichick by Michaels".
So
fellation behaves
syntactically like a derived nominal based on the verb
fellate.
Fellatio, on the other hand, is
just an ordinary act/event noun, and these don't automatically allow a
2 argument to be marked by
of.
Some ordinary act/event nouns allow for marking 2 with a preposition
other than
of, usually
on;
surgery is like this:
surgery on/*
of an emergency patient,
surgery on/*
of his right arm. But some
ordinary act/event nouns are not comfortable even in this construction;
for me, the names of most surgical procedures are like this (*
An appendectomy on this patient is
advisable, *
The/Your nose job
on Kim was not entirely successful), as are
fellatio (*
Fellatio on Tony is uncomfortable)
and for that matter
blowjob
and
handjob (*
My morning blowjob/handjob on Tony is
thoroughly enjoyable). You can express the 2 argument for
these nouns, but it takes an extra verb, which can then be used in a
nominal gerund, or converted to a derived nominal:
performing/doing an appendectomy on this patient,
the surgeon's performance of an
appendectomy on this patient,
performing
fellatio on Tony,
providing fellatio to/for Tony,
giving
a blowjob/handjob to Tony.
zwicky at-sign csli period stanford period edu
Posted by Arnold Zwicky at February 6, 2006 01:57 PM