Despite the fact that these affixes have no categorial features, Melissaropoulou and Ralli (2008), nevertheless, argue that evaluative suffixes should be considered heads.
With respect to the fact that Greek evaluative affixes cannot change the category of the base, Melissaropoulou and Ralli (2008) argue that this property (or the lack thereof) is not an exclusive characteristic of these affixes since other (true) derivational affixes exhibit categorial neutrality.
As I will show in this paper, this argumentation is not accurate and Greek evaluative affixes should not be considered heads.
Given that our interest in this research lies not only in accounting for the BF and AP effects, but also in the BF effect when the productivity of affixes is low, we decided to carry out a paired comparison using the data obtained.
The words with the greatest error rate are those that are made up of uncommon bases and unproductive affixes (5.
Baayen 1992: 110-11) explains that affixes cannot be compared simply by contrasting their frequency, because not all affixes are freely attachable to a base (see 2).
The ten least productive affixes for token frequency Affix Frequency 1.
Since the latter remains constant for the different affixes, in relative terms P* turns out to coincide with the simple number of hapaxes.
In section 2 we will propose a different procedure for calculating P(N), namely, to evaluate it for different affixes at equal values of N.
It is worth drawing attention to the fact that affixes so often share the meanings of location and instrument, given that various scholars have commented on the supposed naturalness of a syncretism between instrument and agent (e.
To summarise the material on the meanings of deverbal affixes which denote locations, we can say that while some languages certainly do seem to have affixes whose function is to mark location (Abkhaz, Arabic, Chukchee, Evenki, Finnish, Urarina are described this way in my data).
We might first ask whether the affixes themselves make any semantic contribution to their bases.
We are by no means the first in recent years to study these affixes, to note their polysemy, and to seek a unitary characterization of their behavior.
i) how do category preserving affixes get linearized?
ii) why do some affixes take prominence over others within the same set?