Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 131
  1. #111
    birdeen's call is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Polish
      • Home Country:
      • Poland
      • Current Location:
      • Poland
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,098
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    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...

  2. #112
    Frank Antonson's Avatar
    Frank Antonson is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    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"

  3. #113
    chester_100's Avatar
    chester_100 is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • Persian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • Iran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    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.

  4. #114
    birdeen's call is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Polish
      • Home Country:
      • Poland
      • Current Location:
      • Poland
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,098
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    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.

  5. #115
    Frank Antonson's Avatar
    Frank Antonson is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    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."

  6. #116
    chester_100's Avatar
    chester_100 is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • Persian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • Iran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by birdeen's call View Post
    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

  7. #117
    birdeen's call is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Polish
      • Home Country:
      • Poland
      • Current Location:
      • Poland
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,098
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    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.

  8. #118
    chester_100's Avatar
    chester_100 is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • Persian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • Iran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

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

  9. #119
    chester_100's Avatar
    chester_100 is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • Persian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • Iran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    And a French sentence.
    I believe:

    - vue + dans l'œil = NP => N' + P + Art + N
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Mecanisme.JPG  

  10. #120
    chester_100's Avatar
    chester_100 is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • Persian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • Iran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

    Some seemingly Persio-Polish cognates:

    ŻEŃSKI / ŻONA=ZAN

    ÓW = OW

    DWÓJKA=Dow

    CZWÓRKA=Chehar




Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Morpheme and Morph
    By Open-minded in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-Apr-2010, 00:40
  2. text - linguistic analysis
    By rochachat in forum Text Analysis and Statistics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-May-2006, 11:15
  3. linguistic analysis
    By kevindb123 in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-Sep-2005, 10:02
  4. Linguistic analysis
    By Snow Lau in forum Text Analysis and Statistics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-Jul-2005, 06:41

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •