- Jul 15, 2010
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Home Country
- Current Location
So roots aren't morphemes?? Wow, I always thought they were!
CNow I want to pick up on that word ''archaic''. Isn't it tempting to think that the ancients were in some way SMARTER than we? There must be a certain ''effiiciency'' with a language. (English, as an example of a modern language, may simple be ''encrusted'' with a vast vocabulary) Is it more ''efficient'' to use a case instead of a preposition? I suspect so.
Perhaps, it depends on the word structure of the language in question. The evolution of human cognition might have played a role too?
But, anyway, I think there must instances of such cases in Farsi too. I'm curious.
About the ''efficiency'', I have to say the cases seem to shorten sentences.
Well, don't let me distract you. I have to wonder if there are linguists out there in the world at large who could descend upon us and dazzle us with what they already know. In the meantime, I feel like you two are on a linguistic adventure. Keep it up.
Thanks. Your views are thought-provoking.
I'm not sure what you mean by efficience. I guess it can be measured in different ways.Is it more "efficient" to use a case instead of a preposition? I suspect so.
I think it is a root in the light of what you say! Take a look at a couple of examples I'm going to provide.The same thing, in my opinion, may be true about 'absorb', but in this case the original language is Latin and the receptive language is Polish.
If you're sure that 'absorb' is a root in Polish, then it can be used as a meaningful morpheme.
CPS: I think I understand the problem now. In your diagrams, every vertex of the tree that is not an affix must be a word! I think it doesn't apply to Polish...
I know what you mean.
We face a problem here; if 'owa' is not a suffix (logically it should be), then to what morphological category does it belong?
I suppose it has a special function; apparently it prepares a word (maybe a noun) to be attached to other morpheme like ć, nie, ący ... .
There is also another possibility: the problem of setting fixed boundaries for morphemes is still unsolved in morphology.
We have two different situations here:
I. Following the synchronic knowledge of people. It means that if people are not able to understand or recognize the morpheme when it's used in isolation, we shouldn't divide it.
II. Basing the analysis on the expectations of experts to whose field the morpheme belongs. For example, to a Polish Chemist, 'absorb' might be a perfectly recognizable morpheme which is used in many technical words. Such being the case, za + absorb + owa + c is a good formula - which is what you indicated.
Let's take the word "szafa", which means wardrobe in Polish. Let's write down all the singular cases of the word:
PPS: OK, it is a word but it's an accident! It's the plural genitive!
Another problem is the rule's capability of being generalizable. It should cover a great number of words.
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.