Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

[Frank Antonson]

I meant "an example". Didn't have my glasses on.

[chester_100]

Chester,

I sort of follow you. My experience and skill with Reed-Kellogg is of no use here since R-K deals with syntax, not morphology. Yet, I think a system of diagramming for morphology could be very useful. Is there any such system for Indo-European words?

I see.
According to the Chomskean theories on syntax, every syntactic structure is binary-branching. This theory covers all of the syntactic structures including sentences, clauses, phrases, words, and even morphemes. As a result, a system developed according to a view like this can be used to diagram all of the meaningful language units.


I want to support your work, but I am not sure how to do it. If I understand this correctly, you are "going where no man has gone before" (to quote "Star Trek")
Nice words!
Well, the third technical expression (intermediate projection) was introduced years ago, but, following the rubric of naming phenomena and entities, I decided to coin the two first expressions to describe the morphological structure. 'Going where no man has gone before' certainly applies to the expressions!
And, as far as I know Arabic, I expect the post to contain the first instance of an Arabic word diagramed that way- yet I can't be sure of this.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think of a morpheme as the smallest unit of meaning in a language. If this is so, morphemes SHOULD be able to be tagged and followed.
Absolutely! Some these aspects are studied under the phonology of morphemes.


Frank

C

[chester_100]

Hi, can I join the discussion?
Yes, please.
I don't have much knowledge about morphemes, but it's an interesting topic to me.
It's really interesting.

I've just thought that morphemes seem to have some kind of their own syntax (I'm not sure about it though...),
That's true.
so maybe it could be possible to adapt some system of syntax analysis for this purpose? (I don't know any such system but I'd like to learn it.)
The Universal Grammar can help us. I've mentioned one of its rules in the above post.
By the way, I'm planning to work on Polish too.

C

[Frank Antonson]

Okay, I am ready to admit my ignorance. Up until now I have never heard of "universal grammar". What should I do about this gap in my knowledge? (I will certainly check it out on wikipedia) I have tried to study Chomsky, but I have felt that he was making things needlessly complicated for my purposes.

[chester_100]

Okay, I am ready to admit my ignorance. Up until now I have never heard of "universal grammar". What should I do about this gap in my knowledge? (I will certainly check it out on wikipedia) I have tried to study Chomsky, but I have felt that he was making things needlessly complicated for my purposes.

You know, it really depends on your purpose. For instance, I'd agree that diagramming according to Chomsky's binary system can discourage learners. So, as my posts show in this forum, I always relied on the traditional tree-diagrams. One can say that his theories are complicated in such a case.

Also, accepting the assumption that there's a language-stimulating gene, and imputing the genetic source to human beings as the only cause of language evolution, without sufficient empirical investigation, is not easy just to everyone.

Yet, he is the most influential expert in modern linguistics, and, in my opinion, we can try to find evidence to support his theories- if possible.

[Frank Antonson]

Yes, he is certainly influential. The problem for me is that he "takes the fun out of it". If his theory is really going to work, I feel like I want to wait until it is for certain. Even then, I am not sure if I am going to take the time to learn it well. I guess I am less scientific and more humanistic about language. I LOVE that I can take a thought expressed by Shakespeare and analyze it to the extent that I feel that I know EXACTLY what he is saying. I am not sure Chomsky will help me there. And the fun I get from comparing word order in a German sentence and that in an English sentence does not depend upon anything more complicated than morphology and syntax as taught by House and Harmon (Reed-Kellogg).

[chester_100]

Yes, he is certainly influential. The problem for me is that he ''takes the fun out of it''. If his theory is really going to work, I feel like I want to wait until it is for certain. Even then, I am not sure if I am going to take the time to learn it well. I guess I am less scientific and more humanistic about language.
The increasing interest in utilizing rules and methods of physical sciences in human sciences has given a new complexion to the humanities, and, of course, to the study of language.

I LOVE that I can take a thought expressed by Shakespeare and analyze it to the extent that I feel that I know EXACTLY what he is saying. I am not sure Chomsky will help me there.
That can be true. His ideas are more focused on cognitive/structural aspects of language than aesthetic qualities of literature.

And the fun I get from comparing word order in a German sentence and that in an English sentence does not depend upon anything more complicated than morphology and syntax as taught by House and Harmon (Reed-Kellogg).
I know what you mean.
This is a review of the possible applications of the already developed methods and theories. Tomorrow, we may work on the findings of another expert.

C

[birdeen's call]

By the way, I'm planning to work on Polish too.

I'm waiting impatiently to see that!!

[chester_100]

I'm waiting impatiently to see that!!

Sure!

[chester_100]

O.k. Let's get on the job.
Polish involves the most complicated language network I've ever seen.

How would you translate it into English? Is the categorization acceptable? We will work on morphological matters later.
(That's a Koranic verse)