Lexical conservatism and the notion base of affixation

On the first interpretation, identify is the morphosyntactic base of the derived word identifiable: this statement is justified by the fact that a morphosyntactic property of identify the fact that it is a verb is a prerequisite for the affixation of -able. On a second interpretation, identify is the semantic base of identifiable: the semantics of the -able form are a function of those of the verb contained within it. Finally, a third interpretation of the statement in (1) has to do with the phonology of the -able form. The phonological shape of the complex word is a function of the shape of its inner constituent. In this case, and many others, the morphosyntactic and semantic base of the complex expression are the same as the phonological base. If one considers the extended lexical paradigm of identify (identity, identification) one observes that the phonology of the -able form can be accounted for only by reference to the verb identify. And this suggests that the morphosyntactic base is of necessity identical to the phonological base of the word. It is for this reason that the normal use of statements like (1) conflates the two or three senses that I have distinguished above.