Observers stand united in bewilderment as to the blatantly gendered nature of basic theoretical constructs in current morphology. Centre stage and dominant in current conceptualisations of linguistic word-
Even the very word word
We turn to the feminine principle as represented by the clitic. Definitionally unable to exist without her ‘host’, the clitic is portrayed as unanchored, devoid of inherent personality, unless the ‘prop’ in the form of an independent lexeme can sustain her. Moreover, the insistence of the clitic as a ‘reduced’ form of what can, in principle, be a phonologically independent entity serves to continue the oppressive tradition that subjugates the Female to the Male. This must serve as a wake-up call to Womanhood to refuse the chains of cliticisation and, in a supreme, gender-
We could go on, but let us mention, if only in passing, the shameful dogma of the so-called “second position” as it relates to the Feminine principle of cliticisation. To blatantly, baldly, bare-
We must, of course, discuss the third element of the equation: the principle of the Child as represented by the bound morpheme. While in nature much closer to the Feminine clitic, the bound morpheme nevertheless is attached to the Masculine word. Here we see the paternalistic paradigm invading the mother-
1 The Editorial Commission for Selecting Between Multiple Adjectival Forms struggled with this one for at least several minutes given the head-scratching reality that at least two other adjectival forms exist: gargoylian and gargolian. The Commission asked some gargoyles for input, but left none the wiser as some of the gargoyles were gargling and others, who were Googling, didn’t hear the question in the first place. We went with gargoylial as it has two L’s and LL in Roman numerals equals 100 which would be the number of readers of the last issue if we had 93 more.
2 The ironic significance of the standard acronym for this, ‘MAMA’, is not lost on the author.
|Diacritics and Dire Critics
|SpecGram Vol CLXXXVII, No 2 Contents|