Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!gmb
From: gmb@natcorp.ox.ac.uk (Glynis Baguley)
Subject: Re: duplication?
Message-ID: <1995Mar7.110025.6087@onionsnatcorp.ox.ac.uk>
Originator: gmb@onions.natcorp
Organization: British National Corpus, Oxford University, GB
References: <3j4pjn$ct@amhux3.amherst.edu> <xu+4VlH.padrote@delphi.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:00:25 GMT
Lines: 20

In article <xu+4VlH.padrote@delphi.com> John Ayala <padrote@delphi.com> writes:
> David A. Mastroianni <damastro@unix.amherst.edu> writes:
>  
> >	This does not see, like something that would work in English.
> >English likes compound words, but duplication I think would sound kind
> >of like baby-talk.  Would that go for related languages?
>  
> An example from English: muckamuck. But according to the American Heritage
> Dictionary, this is a borrowing from Chinook.

Is it duplication or reduplication? In English there are words like
namby-pamby, from Ambrose Phillips, who I think wrote `Georgie Porgie'
amongst other literary efforts.


-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{      Glynis.Baguley@oucs.ox.ac.uk     }
{  Oxford University Computing Services }
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
