birdeen's call
VIP Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Polish
- Home Country
- Poland
- Current Location
- Poland
Hi. Sorry about the delay.
People from the Polish forum said the following things.
1. "-owa-"/"-ow-" and "-uj-" are called respectively "temat czasu przeszłego" and "temat czasu teraźniejszego". I'm posting the Polish names because I don't know how to translate it. "Temat" in Polish morphology usually means stem but I'm not sure if it's a good translation. It's not a stem in the usual meaning of the word. But if we accept the word "stem" as the right translation, we'll get "the stem of the past tense" and "the stem of the present tense".
2. Answering the question, "Are all derivational affixes morphemes?", one person said, "No, not always." and gave the following example.
pod - nóż - ek (footstool)
The lexical root in this word is "-nóż-" which is a phonologically altered form of "nog-", a root carrying the meaning of "leg" ("noga" in Polish). Such root alterations are quite frequent in Polish.
"Pod-" is a morpheme that means "under". "-ek" is a diminutive morpheme. They are both morphemes.
The is no word "podnóż" or "podnog" or "podnoga" or "podnóg" (the last one being the most probable construction, but still nonexistent). There is also no word "nóżek". (There is a diminutive form of "noga" - leg - but it's a different story.) So neither "pod-" nor "-ek" is an affix. The person who gave the example didn't say that but I found out myself that it's an example of the so-called "circumfix". Thus the affix here is "pod- -ek" which is not a morpheme as it can be divided into two new meaningful parts.
3. The question that was most important to me was, "Are '-owa-'/'-ow-' and '-uj-' morphemes?" Two persons said they are. I asked what was their meaning then, as morphemes must have their own meanings. They said Polish morphologists apply abstract meanings to such particles. Here, it would be more or less "in the past" and "in the present". Unfortunately, this is not so easy. These particles don't always create past forms but using those "abstract meanings" we can always overcome such problems.
4. Another person said that even "-owa-" can be split into "-ow-" and "-a-" where "-a-" also have some kind of an abstract meaning. I asked what meaning and got no answer.
5. Then I asked about those "abstract meanings". Are they real meanings? To me, a meaning exists if people understand it. One person took this question as an attempt to diminish his knowledge, not a real question and we ended up in a fight.
6. One person said "-uj-" was a suffix. I asked why. I read the definition of a suffix on English Wikipedia which says that root + suffix = word. This is not the case here. "-uj-" needs the inflexional ending to make a word. The person didn't try reading the definition or explaining anything. He just said the definition was wrong or I misunderstood it.
7. They said the mentioned "-a-" morpheme was something they called a "flektyw" which should be probably translated into "a flective". A flective - says Polish Wikipedia - is an element of an inflectable (is it a word?) lexeme that carries the information about the grammatical function.
People from the Polish forum said the following things.
1. "-owa-"/"-ow-" and "-uj-" are called respectively "temat czasu przeszłego" and "temat czasu teraźniejszego". I'm posting the Polish names because I don't know how to translate it. "Temat" in Polish morphology usually means stem but I'm not sure if it's a good translation. It's not a stem in the usual meaning of the word. But if we accept the word "stem" as the right translation, we'll get "the stem of the past tense" and "the stem of the present tense".
2. Answering the question, "Are all derivational affixes morphemes?", one person said, "No, not always." and gave the following example.
pod - nóż - ek (footstool)
The lexical root in this word is "-nóż-" which is a phonologically altered form of "nog-", a root carrying the meaning of "leg" ("noga" in Polish). Such root alterations are quite frequent in Polish.
"Pod-" is a morpheme that means "under". "-ek" is a diminutive morpheme. They are both morphemes.
The is no word "podnóż" or "podnog" or "podnoga" or "podnóg" (the last one being the most probable construction, but still nonexistent). There is also no word "nóżek". (There is a diminutive form of "noga" - leg - but it's a different story.) So neither "pod-" nor "-ek" is an affix. The person who gave the example didn't say that but I found out myself that it's an example of the so-called "circumfix". Thus the affix here is "pod- -ek" which is not a morpheme as it can be divided into two new meaningful parts.
3. The question that was most important to me was, "Are '-owa-'/'-ow-' and '-uj-' morphemes?" Two persons said they are. I asked what was their meaning then, as morphemes must have their own meanings. They said Polish morphologists apply abstract meanings to such particles. Here, it would be more or less "in the past" and "in the present". Unfortunately, this is not so easy. These particles don't always create past forms but using those "abstract meanings" we can always overcome such problems.
4. Another person said that even "-owa-" can be split into "-ow-" and "-a-" where "-a-" also have some kind of an abstract meaning. I asked what meaning and got no answer.
5. Then I asked about those "abstract meanings". Are they real meanings? To me, a meaning exists if people understand it. One person took this question as an attempt to diminish his knowledge, not a real question and we ended up in a fight.
6. One person said "-uj-" was a suffix. I asked why. I read the definition of a suffix on English Wikipedia which says that root + suffix = word. This is not the case here. "-uj-" needs the inflexional ending to make a word. The person didn't try reading the definition or explaining anything. He just said the definition was wrong or I misunderstood it.
7. They said the mentioned "-a-" morpheme was something they called a "flektyw" which should be probably translated into "a flective". A flective - says Polish Wikipedia - is an element of an inflectable (is it a word?) lexeme that carries the information about the grammatical function.