Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

[birdeen's call]

I think what I'm doing is not very wise. My knowledge is barely sufficent to ask questions about these things, and I'm trying to answer them...

[Frank Antonson]

I wonder if the best way to indicate morphemes is by color. That way you could demonstrate how a morpheme influences other parts of the sentence -- what we Americans call "agreement" but which, I think, is also called "concordance"

[chester_100]

Maybe it belongs to a special group of words.
But I believe such a phenomenon can be in clash with our expectations. Maybe 'owac' is the acceptable form: monitor + ować.
Here it's a suffix.

And -wywać is just another suffix: obdaro + wywać.
If we don't separate 'owa' and 'ć', the problem will be solved.

Then if the above argument is right, is 'owa' an infix or a suffix in the following examples:

absorb - owa - łem = I absorbed (in the past)
absorb - owa - ły = they absorbed (in the past)

Please, note that 'łem' and 'ły' are only inflectional morphemes (that indicate tense and person) and not deviational ones. As a result, they can't be infixes. We have such structures in Farsi too.

-mi - khor - am (I eat)
-mi - khor - i (you eat)
-mi - khor - d - am (I was eating)

Through a comparative analysis, I'd say 'owa' is something like 'd' in the third example. It has a phonological role in Farsi.

[birdeen's call]

This is an interesting example!
I think "-d-" has a meaning in this word. Doesn't it mean "in the past" actually? If it has a meaning, isn't it a morpheme? I understand that a morpheme is a smallest possible part of an utterance that carries some meaning. So I think it's a morpheme... Maybe not an affix though...

***

I asked some questions about these things on a Polish forum dedicated to linguistics. I got quite a few answers. None of them is authoritative and none of them is comprehensive but they have some new points. Before I report it here, I'd like to know if you're interested. It seems to require some effort to summarize them so I don't want to do it if there's no point in it.

[Frank Antonson]

I'm interested.

Speaking of a Polish forum, I can't resist any longer. I must say that the Polish people that I have know are some of the smartest people I know of. It weird because here in the USA, since Poles were some of the later immigrants, there are all kinds of Polish jokes.

I was sitting at a concert with a Polish friend of mine (one of those that I would qualify as being so smart). Well, I though I would be smart, and when the orchestra was tuning up I thought I would make a joke by saying that I always wondered what that first piece they played was (meaning the tuning process, you know, starting with the oboe on a "A"). Well this Polish friend of mine immediately answered, "That's the Polish national anthem."

[chester_100]

This is an interesting example!
I think "-d-" has a meaning in this word. Doesn't it mean "in the past" actually?
Exactly! That marks the difference between the past root and the future root of the verb:

-khor (future, present)
-khor + d (past)

If it has a meaning, isn't it a morpheme? I understand that a morpheme is a smallest possible part of an utterance that carries some meaning. So I think it's a morpheme... Maybe not an affix though...

An affix belongs to the category of deviational morphemes. So, in practice, an affix is a morpheme. However, apart from the necessary condition you (and Frank in one of his posts) mentioned, there's also another very important condition: a morpheme should be semantically valuable. The 'd', in my opinion, is meaningless, if it's used in isolation. Furthermore, it's occurrence depends on phonological matters:

-bor + d + an (to take)
-aras + t + an (to embellish)


***

I asked some questions about these things on a Polish forum dedicated to linguistics. I got quite a few answers. None of them is authoritative and none of them is comprehensive but they have some new points. Before I report it here, I'd like to know if you're interested. It seems to require some effort to summarize them so I don't want to do it if there's no point in it.

There will be surly a point in doing that, but if it's too long and time-consuming and may make you tired, I wouldn't insist.

Thank you

[birdeen's call]

I'm sorry I'm keeping you waiting. The discussion on that other forum turned nasty... I'm going to wait some more before I can brief it with calm.

[chester_100]

Don't worry. That's O.K.

[chester_100]

And a French sentence.
I believe:

- vue + dans l'œil = NP => N' + P + Art + N

[chester_100]

Some seemingly Persio-Polish cognates:

ŻEŃSKI / ŻONA=ZAN

ÓW = OW

DWÓJKA=Dow

CZWÓRKA=Chehar