[Grammar] authorization (# of morphemes)

[dajjorg]

Hey all, this one is for the grammar gurus out there.

As a native English speaker, I've recently begun down the career path of TESL the informal way, and recently stumbled across a new grammar topic to me: that of morphemes.

So as I understand it, morphemes are kind of like the building blocks of words, consisting of base morphemes, suffix morphemes, and prefix morphemes. So for example, in the word "unhappy", you have "un" + "happy" as the two morphemes. Simple enough.

I guess my doubts over my understanding of morphemes begin to arise when it comes to having words that have multiple suffixes and/or prefixes.

For example let's look at the word "authorization". So it seems like you have "authorize" as the base morpheme, plus "ation" as the suffix morpheme. But at the same time, part of this doesn't seem right to me, because the supposed base morpheme "authorize" can itself be broken down further into the even smaller morpheme base "author" plus the suffix morpheme "ize", no?...

So bottom line, I guess I'm wondering...
1-What would you consider to be the base morpheme of "authorization" ("author" or "authorize")?
2-How many morphemes would you consider "authorization" to have (two or three)?

Thanks for the help...

 

[Skrej]

A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of a language. It the morpheme can stand by itself, it's considered a root, and is also a free morpheme. Bound morphemes have to be attached to a word, so your affixes in English are bound morphemes.

The root(base) of authorization would be author. The suffix -ize makes it a verb. The suffix -tion makes a noun out of the verb authorize, but changes the meaning from the original base noun. (Those are also known as derivational morphemes)


Ergo, three morphemes - a root/base of 'author' plus two suffixes.

While authorize is a word, it still consists of two morphemes, so it can't be the base for authorization as it can still be broken further down into meaningful units.

Also - cross posted on this forum where you got the same answer I gave you. Cross posting wastes our time. Please at least state that you're cross posting, or indicate why you're unsatisfied or are questioning the answers you got elsewhere.

 

[Tdol]

How many are there in antidisestablishmentarianism? ;-)

 

[SoothingDave]

One less than in disestablishmentarianism.

 

[dajjorg]

Also - cross posted on this forum where you got the same answer I gave you. Cross posting wastes our time. Please at least state that you're cross posting, or indicate why you're unsatisfied or are questioning the answers you got elsewhere.

Hi Skrej,

I just recently began to research English language topics. As such, I may (and probably will) be posting on multiple forums for my first couple questions as I try to gauge which forums are the most helpful and/or likely to generate a quick response, as well as the quality of the answers. You're right, I will put a disclaimer up next time about this. And maybe, since it seems you also read WR threads, you'd like to share which forum is your most trusted for getting your questions answered accurately and/or at all. Do you subscribe to any others beside WR and this one?

-d

 

[Skrej]

How many are there in antidisestablishmentarianism?

One less than in disestablishmentarianism.

Other way, I think - one more. It'd be one less than neoantidisestablishmentarianism .:-?

 

[Tdol]

Have we had protoneoantidisestablishmentarianism ​yet?

 

[Skrej]

That depends - does quasiprotoneoantidisestablishmentarianismness count?

 

[Skrej]

Hi Skrej,

Do you subscribe to any others beside WR and this one?

-d

I only subscribe to this forum, I can't speak to any other forums.

 

[Rover_KE]

I heard you'd been banned from other forums for using overlong words.:-?

 

[jutfrank]

It'd be one less than neoantidisestablishmentarianism .:-?

One fewer. (Sorry -- couldn't resist.)