Unclear Eerie (spooky) Egyptian Ladder The proposal that the writer put in this section is one of which He has advanced in a number of publication and it is controversial. The proposal is that no underlier may be more abstract than is required to handle productive process. Only productive processes should be handled by rules. Non- productive processes should not be acknowlwdged in the grammar but their products listed separately in the lexicon.
A PROPOSAL FOR LIMITING
ABSTRACTNESS the process such as names with –on /ən/ in their last syllable are pronounced /əʊn/ when forms like foot and ped would, the suffix –ian is added to produce an correspondingly, not be derived from a adjective from those names is condered still single underlier: they would not be a productive one. So, if Mr. Robinson left a considered to be allomorphs of the same bequest to fund an art gallery, it might well morpheme. As a result, FOOT and PEDAL be called Robinsonian Gallery, pronounced can be considered separate lexemes, related /rɒbɪnsənɪən/. The underlier for a name like in meaning but not related in the Robinson, thus, has to be abstract enough to morphology allow this allomorphy by rule, and Robinson and Robinsonian are related by the morphology in a grammar phonosthemes. Bump, compounds, idioms, clump, dump, jump, familiar proverbs or thump quotations
![Linkwords Connectors 120224063823 Phpapp02[1]](https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/192307349/149x198/6cb71eab4c/1387374108?v=1)
